DHS Document on Right Wing Extremism

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74320
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.33%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    DHS Document on Right Wing Extremism


    I'm sure you've all heard now about the DHS document approved by Janet Napolitano, but for those of you that haven't actually READ it yet, here's a link to the PDF...

    http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

  2. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    I'm sure you've all heard now about the DHS document approved by Janet Napolitano, but for those of you that haven't actually READ it yet, here's a link to the PDF...

    http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf
    Yup.. those pesky Iraq Vet's coming back to America... they are going to be the death of us all!



    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  3. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    The DHS report is a report just like any other political report, and those others contain things such as the claimed weapons of mass destruction which Iraq was supposed to have. The report in fact also expresses fear about precisely those service people. It writes:

    "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." (...)

    Now why precisely restriction on firearms would cause problems here, where virtually any other country has severe restrictions on firearms is quite unclear, though most likely among its authors you might have NRA adepts or those who like to interpret this historic document that the Constitution is as arguing that one should be able to walk around waving guns. Historic documents were written in a historic time. They presented a start, with values that have evolved as societies have become more stable. Hence why Constitutions may require updating in modern contents or you end up with orthodox nitwits arguing that an 18th century document gives them the right to enact How the Wild West was won.

    The DHS report contintues saying that "After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups."

    Yes, so ? If we are afraid of all those servicemen coming back, then the only solution according to that rationale would be to have more and more wars so that people as a remedy can artificially be kept active killing others. At the most is suggests, before you decide to hold a war, be sure what you are getting yourself into.

    For the rest, the report is full of hysteria.

    We will not be able to stop some people becoming rightwing extremists, just like we will never stop every single person from raping another person, stealing, murdering others, having no ethics, being a racist, using violence against women and children. We can do our best through education, communication and prevention and reduce the numbers at least.
    •   
       

  4. New Member
    nopeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    270
    Rep Power
    248
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    74.8%

    Wake up!

    Read the MIAC report I posted. It says all Ron Paul supporters are potential terrorists.
    Waving a "gadsen flag" is terrorists.
  5. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.79%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    I'm sure you've all heard now about the DHS document approved by Janet Napolitano, but for those of you that haven't actually READ it yet, here's a link to the PDF...

    http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf
    Its so annoying to have an administration doing non-stop campaigning 3.5 years before the election.
  6. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    You do know this report was initiated and mostly completed under the Bush administration, correct?
  7. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74320
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.33%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You do know this report was initiated and mostly completed under the Bush administration, correct?
    Yet they wait to release under an administration that would most assuredly back it up. Do you really think Bush would have been okay with the release of this?
  8. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    Yet they wait to release under an administration that would most assuredly back it up. Do you really think Bush would have been okay with the release of this?
    I seriously doubt it would have been modified. Post release reaction may have been different. But, as I'm fond of pointing out...



    Or more to the point, what's the difference between an Obama police state and a Bush police state, aside from the somewhat lessened abuse of the English language?
  9. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I seriously doubt it would have been modified. Post release reaction may have been different. But, as I'm fond of pointing out...

    Or more to the point, what's the difference between an Obama police state and a Bush police state, aside from the somewhat lessened abuse of the English language?
    Why is it anytime someone wants to debate todays issues, they always bring up Bush like someone was defending him? That my friend is called a Red Herring.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  10. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Why is it anytime someone wants to debate todays issues, they always bring up Bush like someone was defending him? That my friend is called a Red Herring.

    Adams
    Irish Cannon specifically asked: "Do you really think Bush would have been okay with the release of this?" To which my answer was: "Yes." Care to point out the red herring their?

    The true red herring, in fact the only red herring left in our current state in the US, is that there's a substantial difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and that either one is any less of a threat to individual liberty and the country as a whole. That idea is indeed bull****. Both are profligate spenders, both couldn't give two ****s less about our freedom or the money we earn, and would gladly sacrifice the former for their own agrandizement and take the latter and give it to their respective special interest supporters.

    And they tend to bring up Bush because the hypocrits who suddenly rediscovered their low taxes/minimal government roots were spending like money like it was water not more than a year ago. They quite blatantly don't give a **** about spending, merely who is doing it. And since through their actions they make it clear that personality, not policy, is their true concern, it is more than appropriate to bring up Bush and point out the fact that when he strapped on the spending dildo they all got on their knees and willingly took it in the ass without even asking for the courtesy of a reach around. Now all of a sudden when the Dems want to play, they're out of lube.

    That is bull****. You either are or are not in favor of taking it in the ass. In politics you have to accept that it will occasionally be someone you find unattractive. If you can't stomach that, try an actual principled opposition to the policy in general, don't give your political hotties a pass when they screw up, and only object when someone ugly is coming at you with a vat of vasoline and a hardon.
  11. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Irish Cannon specifically asked: "Do you really think Bush would have been okay with the release of this?" To which my answer was: "Yes." Care to point out the red herring their?

    The true red herring, in fact the only red herring left in our current state in the US, is that there's a substantial difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and that either one is any less of a threat to individual liberty and the country as a whole. That idea is indeed bull****. Both are profligate spenders, both couldn't give two ****s less about our freedom or the money we earn, and would gladly sacrifice the former for their own agrandizement and take the latter and give it to their respective special interest supporters.
    Actually you started with the Bush response.

    And I can get on board with you... the two party system is as corrupt as can be. Even though labeled republican, that is why I wrote in Ron Paul... because he seems to be the only person standing up for what is stated in the constitution, and his "Radical" ideas are an improvement to what we have now.... ideas to save our economy, and revalue our money.... i just dont get it today... my head hurts.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  12. Diamond Member
    Irish Cannon's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"   lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,615
    Rep Power
    74320
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    43.33%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    The term "spending" is all relative. Yes, Republicans have been pretty horrible as well, but what are they using the money for? Certainly not for the Parks Department and building water parks in south Florida. I'd happily see money spent on national defense and military; that's the government's job at this point in time; protecting the citizens.

    Ron Paul would have been good if he had a freaking spine. Mash together Paul/Huckabee/McCain(purely for his war strategy and military expertise) and you would have had a solid candidate.
  13. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    The term "spending" is all relative. Yes, Republicans have been pretty horrible as well, but what are they using the money for? Certainly not for the Parks Department and building water parks in south Florida. I'd happily see money spent on national defense and military; that's the government's job at this point in time; protecting the citizens.

    Ron Paul would have been good if he had a freaking spine. Mash together Paul/Huckabee/McCain(purely for his war strategy and military expertise) and you would have had a solid candidate.
    Yeah... Paul's national defense and war views were his downfall.. i dont like serving in a war and being told it was for nothing.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  14. New Member
    nopeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    270
    Rep Power
    248
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    74.8%

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Yeah... Paul's national defense and war views were his downfall.. i dont like serving in a war and being told it was for nothing.

    Adams
    I think RP's views were different because he served as a medic in Vietnam. No one would have like serving during that time.

    It's true, these points were his downfall. I agree with them however, we got tons of drugs flying across our border and debt after more debt for sustaining an empire.
  15. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.79%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You do know this report was initiated and mostly completed under the Bush administration, correct?
    Correct, but did you know that DHS's legal counsel advised against using overly broad language in the report. DHS's head shed went against the advice of their own legal counsel and released it without changes. I don't think they would have released it without modifying it under Republican leadership. The Republican party calling their entire political platform a justification for terrorist activity doesn't pass the common sense test.
  16. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Actually you started with the Bush response.
    Because RobIn Kuwait said: "Its so annoying to have an administration doing non-stop campaigning 3.5 years before the election." The report's initiation and for the most part completion during the past administration would have some bearing on that statement. Once more, seems you guys are a little defensive on the Bush administration when, to be blunt, the blatant big government spending trends and police state habits of our current 'leaders' probably have more root in the last eight years than in any previous administration.

    Until Republicans prove that they are actually against big spending instead of stone-walling Democrats while rubber stamping their own big budget, big government, anti-liberty agendas, then they are mere rhetoric theives, adopting a libertarian posture when it's convenient for them and acting like Karl Marx when the chips are on the table.

    Ron Paul was indeed the only candidate worth voting for last election. Kudos to you for actually voting for someone who walks the walk instead of just talking the talk. Most Republicans have done otherwise for too long to be taken seriously, and it's entirely proper to throw their past failures to abide by their own ideals right in their faces.
  17. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    The term "spending" is all relative. Yes, Republicans have been pretty horrible as well, but what are they using the money for? Certainly not for the Parks Department and building water parks in south Florida. I'd happily see money spent on national defense and military; that's the government's job at this point in time; protecting the citizens.

    Ron Paul would have been good if he had a freaking spine. Mash together Paul/Huckabee/McCain(purely for his war strategy and military expertise) and you would have had a solid candidate.
    This belies the Republicans vociferous objections to Clinton's military 'adventurism'. Paul is the only Republican with a spine, spine enough to stand up to the war faction of his own party and calmly explain that consistently bombing people in the name of peace is idiotic, counterproductive, and as economically desctructive as any welfare program.
  18. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Yeah... Paul's national defense and war views were his downfall.. i dont like serving in a war and being told it was for nothing.

    Adams
    Even if that's the truth? In order to correctly identify the proper use of the military in world affairs we need to abandon the BS ideology that every time a soldier cuts a fart they're defending our freedom. In order to be defending our freedom they need to be put against a legitimate threat to our freedom. Al Qeda and by default Afganistan? Yes. Arguable, but solid enough. Iraq? No. Iran? Likely not. At some point in the debate over the middle east our past interventions and the people they have legitimately pissed off are going to have to be dealt with as a matter of making current and future policy. So long as people like McCain insist on calling that reasoned approach "blaming America," as if our foreign policy is somehow magically immune to negative consequences, no progress will be made on this front. Paul brought blow back into the national debate on this issue from the conservative stand point, a debate that has been all too long dominated by morons like Hannity.
  19. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Correct, but did you know that DHS's legal counsel advised against using overly broad language in the report. DHS's head shed went against the advice of their own legal counsel and released it without changes. I don't think they would have released it without modifying it under Republican leadership. The Republican party calling their entire political platform a justification for terrorist activity doesn't pass the common sense test.
    Possibly. This however does not change the substance of the report and what it means for US citizens.
  20. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.79%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Possibly. This however does not change the substance of the report and what it means for US citizens.
    Actually it does. It shows that even after they were warned that the report was "overly broad" and that they should narrow the focus they still choose to go against that recommendation and release it. I personally believe it was done to create division and foster a mentality that opponents to the Democrat's platform are terrorists. Also, it should be noted that the only other group that the term "extremist" has been applied to is Islamic extremists. All the memos warning of left wing groups did not include that term.
  21. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Actually it does. It shows that even after they were warned that the report was "overly broad" and that they should narrow the focus they still choose to go against that recommendation and release it. I personally believe it was done to create division and foster a mentality that opponents to the Democrat's platform are terrorists. Also, it should be noted that the only other group that the term "extremist" has been applied to is Islamic extremists. All the memos warning of left wing groups did not include that term.
    You are ingoring the broader problem associated with this memo. Past memos are arguably just as overly broad in defining leftist, peace oriented groups as terrorist or extreme in nature. Remember Project Megiddo? The various communications during the Bush years that indicated the FBI/CIA were potentially monitoring groups like Green Peace? This is hardly new. What is new is the source: ERB. The Extremist and Radicalization Branch of DHS. This is in effect the first government office whose sole purpose is to spy on, classify, and asses threats based on US citizens' ideological and political associations. ERB was brought into existence under Bush, not Obama. A recent article on the subject points out that,

    "[t]he ERB report concludes with the observation that the Department of Homeland Security 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.'

    "This is significant chiefly because it acknowledges that every "local" police agency in the United States is now a sensory organ, and enforcement appendage, of the Homeland Security State."
    The import of this report isn't that the current administration is anti right wing, it's that for the first time in the history of this country - thanks to Bush and all those who under his leadership were so quick to **** on the consitution and use such feces as lube for a nice slippery slope - federal, state, and local police have essentially all be deputized to report on the peaceful and constitutionally protected activities of the citizens of this country for possible use in detention and questioning. Your fixation on the ideological slant has lead you to ignore this point altogether. Or, perhaps you wouldn't much care except that by an accident of administration it was pointed at your ideology and not the lefty's?

    Bush was wrong to start this, Obama is wrong to continue it. The ideology slant is window dressing that obscures, perhaps intentionally, the larger point that instead of protecting and serving law enforcement is now poised to move wholesale into the business of monitoring and reporting and starting to more and more ressemble an occupying military force rather than a civilian law enforcement instrument.
  22. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.79%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You are ingoring the broader problem associated with this memo. Past memos are arguably just as overly broad in defining leftist, peace oriented groups as terrorist or extreme in nature. Remember Project Megiddo? The various communications during the Bush years that indicated the FBI/CIA were potentially monitoring groups like Green Peace? This is hardly new. What is new is the source: ERB. The Extremist and Radicalization Branch of DHS. This is in effect the first government office whose sole purpose is to spy on, classify, and asses threats based on US citizens' ideological and political associations. ERB was brought into existence under Bush, not Obama. A recent article on the subject points out that,



    The import of this report isn't that the current administration is anti right wing, it's that for the first time in the history of this country - thanks to Bush and all those who under his leadership were so quick to **** on the consitution and use such feces as lube for a nice slippery slope - federal, state, and local police have essentially all be deputized to report on the peaceful and constitutionally protected activities of the citizens of this country for possible use in detention and questioning. Your fixation on the ideological slant has lead you to ignore this point altogether. Or, perhaps you wouldn't much care except that by an accident of administration it was pointed at your ideology and not the lefty's?

    Bush was wrong to start this, Obama is wrong to continue it. The ideology slant is window dressing that obscures, perhaps intentionally, the larger point that instead of protecting and serving law enforcement is now poised to move wholesale into the business of monitoring and reporting and starting to more and more ressemble an occupying military force rather than a civilian law enforcement instrument.
    I didn't realize Bush did all that. I agree with you, its fuct up.
  23. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Even if that's the truth? In order to correctly identify the proper use of the military in world affairs we need to abandon the BS ideology that every time a soldier cuts a fart they're defending our freedom.
    Exactly!
  24. lutherblsstt
    Guest
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    I think we must be honest and while some may be surprised, shocked, offended, the truth is that 'we' don't really know. We can gather opinions of other people, Google the Internet, but really DHS probably has a loads of classified information and other avenues that we do not have access to. It is difficult without having access to their information to argue their methodology or point out flaws, which there very well may be.

    There used to be a time the government had 'information' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too. Yet, rhetorically it would be fallacious to project that one statement is wrong because they have been seriously wrong before. After all there is very little connection between the veracity of these claims and the previous ones.

    It is also unclear what really the Secretary's view is. Politically she has very little choice but to stand by the claims. Even if she disagrees, to publicly do so against her own staff would be disloyal, even though within DHS circles there might have well been some hard talk about the report. I would imagine that more likely than not there would be, even if it were just because of nuisance with the press.

    Perhaps a different argument could be made, one in the sense of not so much whether this is all true, but one in the sense of ... why make such a report ? What does one gain by such a report becoming public knowledge ? Does the Mossad or MI5 or MI6 make such reports to release them to the general public ? Assume that the report is correct, then what does the public gain from knowing its contents ? I am not arguing that it should remain secretive, not at all> I think that interested parties who want or need to know should get access to it, but I think that is still a difference from letting every lunatic among the 300-some million Americans interpret the contents. At the end of the day, true or not, little merit seems to be coming out of it, or not ? If it is true, what is the general public suppose to do ? Are they better off now that they know if (assuming that it is true), or does that make them safer ?

    That there may very likely be an increased proportion of returning veterans who have experienced severe stress and may not have completely processed that there friend who wanted to just help out an Iraqi kid had his head blown off while he was just 10 feet removed from it, and how he saw life ebb away, etc. Of course. Will that leave someone similar with a short fuse for the rest of his life ? That is for psychologists to figure out, but I repeat the question .. . Are we better off if the answer is 'yes' and we know that it is 'yes' ?
  25. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Exactly!
    You and CDB can piss off on this theory... only people that haven't served criticize so blatantly. To go through what myself or any other Sailor/Soldier/DevilDog/Airman at least deserves some sort of respect. The shear amount of getting pissed at least deserves them that. They should be afforded some extra respect and/or leniency while following orders, cause Lord knows nothing else is given.

    If they cut a fart in the green zone while getting mortared, damn strait they are defending our freedoms while flatulating.

    Why not stop by the airport and spit on them when they return home?

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  26. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    You and CDB can piss off on this theory... only people that haven't served criticize so blatantly.
    This is a bull**** argument. I don't need to be a master carpenter to know a ****ty dovetail joint when I see one, I don't need to be a soldier to know what is and is not a proper or constitutional use of the military. I respect the military and all those in it who are willing to sacrifice for this country's good. However, soldiers are not automatically saints, nor are the civilian politicians who decide how they are used. In fact the latter tend to be idiots more often than not, and in my opinion the military has been ill used by them for the better part of the last century and currently.

    To go through what myself or any other Sailor/Soldier/DevilDog/Airman at least deserves some sort of respect.
    And exactly how is questioning the use of the military as dictated by politicians disrespectful? You are not saints, what you go through does not excuse you or the people who give you assignments from moral and ethical judgement.

    The shear amount of getting pissed at least deserves them that. They should be afforded some extra respect and/or leniency while following orders, cause Lord knows nothing else is given.
    I am not questioning the troops, I am questioning morons like Sean Hannity and his ilk who try to transform legitimate policy debates and dissents into attacks on the military. It's a bull**** debate tactic and only idiots and people who are overly emotionally involved fall for. My guess is you're in the latter category. Get over it.

    If they cut a fart in the green zone while getting mortared, damn strait they are defending our freedoms while flatulating.
    No, they are not. Soldiers are only defending our freedom if they are fighting a legitimate threat to our freedom. Iraq in general, Saddam in particular, and the thirty thousand or so dead Iraqi civilians out there, not to mention the thousands of troops we lost in achieving the end of killing all of them, were never a threat to US security or safety. They were never a threat to any US citizen's rights or well being. Our security is arguably worse off because of the troops we had to sacrifice thus far.

    Another favorite debating tactic of the neocons is to ask if the world is better off without Saddam. I counter with asking whether or not the world is better off without the thousands of our troops killed and the thousands of Iraqis killed in order to achieve this end? What do you think, are we better off minus a few thousand of our youngest, strongest, hard working and patriotic? How about the families here and in the middle east now minus a father, a mother, a son or daugher, are they better off?

    Why not stop by the airport and spit on them when they return home?

    Adams
    Your emotions are clouding your judgement on this one, DA. If you honestly conflate questions of policy with attacks on the troops then you need to take a step back and realize there is a big difference between honorable men and women who are willing to die for the well being of others, and the **** storm of vile ****s in DC who are mostly responsible for taking these well meaning people and using them for means other than for which they were intended.

    My quip about soldiers farting is meant to lampoon the idiotic positions of neoconservatives like Hannity and others, who cheer every 'mission' and every use of the military as if it's beyond question the most moral and ethical thing to do. There's ****loads of innocent dead brown people who were never a threat to a single US citizen would disagree for one, and I am not willing to let people like Hannity, and you if that's your wont, to use the sophmoric debating tactic of conflating policy with the troops and thus make the questioning of the former an insult to the latter. I will question policy I find unacceptable and I refuse to let the overly delicate feelings of some and the moronic debating tactics of others stand in the way of that questioning.

    Or, in other words, I will not grant the position that every action of any soldier at any given time, whether under fire or not or following orders or not, is somehow automatically in my interest or the interest of this nation, nor in defense of our freedoms. As with any action the judgement depends on the context. In order to defend my freedom there must first be a legitimate threat to that freedom.
  27. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    You are not only attacking policy. For hells sake, attack policy away, i could give a rats ass. BUT, to say a soldiers successful mission is anything but to be congratulated is asinine. A soldier is orders to perform a function, and cannot renig on doing so. But instead of giving such the credit they deserve, you demean what was accomplished, BECAUSE YOU do not agree with what was done.

    Comparing the work of a carpenter with the work of a soldier is very insulting, and I will refrain from responding.

    A soldier is ordered, and denying that order is unhonorable, and immoral. You are thinking in a hippie world were everything is made of chocolate and rainbows. Morallity is subjective, and yours lie in other places.

    Adams
    Last edited by DAdams91982; 04-23-2009 at 03:23 PM.
    The Historic PES Legend
  28. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.79%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    You are not only attacking policy. For hells sake, attack policy away, i could give a rats ass. BUT, to say a soldiers successful mission is anything but to be congratulated is asinine. A soldier is orders to perform a function, and cannot renig on doing so. But instead of giving such the credit you deserve, you demean what was accomplished, BECAUSE YOU do not agree with what was done.

    Comparing the work of a carpenter with the work of a soldier is very insulting, and I will refrain from responding.

    A soldier is ordered, and denying that order is unhonorable, and immoral. You are thinking in a hippie world were everything is made of chocolate and rainbows. Morallity is subjective, and your lies in other places.

    Adams
    I agree Adams. To say that one doesn't agree with a war is one thing, but to imply that an individual Soldier has anything other than one vote out of 110 million to do with the decision to wage war is totally off base. The decision to use force always falls back on civilians in Washington. They're the ones that should be held accountable for US foreign policy.
  29. Registered User
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1312
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    94.04%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Correct, but did you know that DHS's legal counsel advised against using overly broad language in the report. DHS's head shed went against the advice of their own legal counsel and released it without changes.
    Link, please.
  30. Registered User
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1312
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    94.04%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You are ingoring the broader problem associated with this memo. Past memos are arguably just as overly broad in defining leftist, peace oriented groups as terrorist or extreme in nature. Remember Project Megiddo? The various communications during the Bush years that indicated the FBI/CIA were potentially monitoring groups like Green Peace? This is hardly new. What is new is the source: ERB. The Extremist and Radicalization Branch of DHS. This is in effect the first government office whose sole purpose is to spy on, classify, and asses threats based on US citizens' ideological and political associations. ERB was brought into existence under Bush, not Obama. A recent article on the subject points out that,



    The import of this report isn't that the current administration is anti right wing, it's that for the first time in the history of this country - thanks to Bush and all those who under his leadership were so quick to **** on the consitution and use such feces as lube for a nice slippery slope - federal, state, and local police have essentially all be deputized to report on the peaceful and constitutionally protected activities of the citizens of this country for possible use in detention and questioning. Your fixation on the ideological slant has lead you to ignore this point altogether. Or, perhaps you wouldn't much care except that by an accident of administration it was pointed at your ideology and not the lefty's?

    Bush was wrong to start this, Obama is wrong to continue it. The ideology slant is window dressing that obscures, perhaps intentionally, the larger point that instead of protecting and serving law enforcement is now poised to move wholesale into the business of monitoring and reporting and starting to more and more ressemble an occupying military force rather than a civilian law enforcement instrument.
    Man, when I agree with you, I *REALLY* agree with you!
  31. New Member
    Jimmy Alto's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    68
    Rep Power
    105
    Level
    7
    Lv. Percent
    40.24%

    BUT, to say a soldiers successful mission is anything but to be congratulated is asinine. A soldier is orders to perform a function, and cannot renig on doing so. But instead of giving such the credit they deserve, you demean what was accomplished, BECAUSE YOU do not agree with what was done.
    So by your logic every soldier that ever accomplished a mission in history should be congratulated?
  32. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    So by your logic every soldier that ever accomplished a mission in history should be congratulated?
    Way to liberally twist my words to make it say what you want.. if you do not see the US implementation of my comment, then you are not for this conversation.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  33. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    Man, when I agree with you, I *REALLY* agree with you!
    Funny... cause when you DON'T agree... you REALLY don't agree. No middle ground for you my friend.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  34. New Member
    Jimmy Alto's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    68
    Rep Power
    105
    Level
    7
    Lv. Percent
    40.24%

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Way to liberally twist my words to make it say what you want.. if you do not see the US implementation of my comment, then you are not for this conversation.

    Adams
    I'm not "liberally twisting," your words. I'm asking you a question and you're completely avoiding it. Let's try again. So, based on what you've just added, only US soldiers should be congratulated on a completed mission?
  35. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.06%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    I'm not "liberally twisting," your words. I'm asking you a question and you're completely avoiding it. Let's try again. So, based on what you've just added, only US soldiers should be congratulated on a completed mission?
    YES... I thought that was the implication. If a US soldier is ordered to perform a mission, and he succeeds, he SHOULD be congratulated. There was no skating the question, your words were loaded and didn't warrant a response.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  36. Registered User
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,272
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    34
    Lv. Percent
    69.79%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    I'm not "liberally twisting," your words. I'm asking you a question and you're completely avoiding it. Let's try again. So, based on what you've just added, only US soldiers should be congratulated on a completed mission?
    If you have a problem with the mission US Soldiers are assigned, you should criticize the politicians who assign them the mission. US Soldiers don't get to pick and choose missions.
  37. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    If you have a problem with the mission US Soldiers are assigned, you should criticize the politicians who assign them the mission. US Soldiers don't get to pick and choose missions.
    They do however have a choice whether or not to join the military, and I assume have some idea of the missions they are go on beforehand. I can understand not criticizing soldiers for policy, but nor do they deserve automatic congrats for completing a mission. If they want congratualtions then the mission better be constitutional, authorized along the same lines, and to the benefit of the population at large in defending their liberties. I have yet to see a single mission that I know of that fits that bill in the last few decades at least.

    Also please stop the Just Following Orders BS. Soldiers are humans, they can and are in fact required to make ethical judgements about their missions. They are not just androids that kill on command. This constant prattle about them having no choice is nonsense. They do have a choice. That is at once the source of the respect they deserve and the rock and a hard place they may find themselves in when enforcing policy not in the US's best interests.
  38. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Way to liberally twist my words to make it say what you want.. if you do not see the US implementation of my comment, then you are not for this conversation.

    Adams
    Aha, so it's only US soldiers that can do no wrong and deserve universal praise...
  39. New Member
    Jimmy Alto's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    68
    Rep Power
    105
    Level
    7
    Lv. Percent
    40.24%

    YES... I thought that was the implication. If a US soldier is ordered to perform a mission, and he succeeds, he SHOULD be congratulated. There was no skating the question, your words were loaded and didn't warrant a response.

    Adams

    So who should be congratulating the US soldiers? Just US citizens? What about British, Iraqi, etc. civilians?

    And are there any other nations in particular, at this point in time, whose soldiers should be congratulated on accomplished missions? (Assuming you didn't reaallly mean that only US soldiers should be congratulated)
  40. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Alto View Post
    So who should be congratulating the US soldiers? Just US citizens? What about British, Iraqi, etc. civilians?

    And are there any other nations in particular, at this point in time, whose soldiers should be congratulated on accomplished missions? (Assuming you didn't reaallly mean that only US soldiers should be congratulated)
    We're wasting our time with this line of questioning. Reason is not the driving force behind the other side of this argument. Plain statements are in order:

    The military is made of human beings, not saints, and is commanded by politicians, who are definitely not saints.

    While soldiers are not to be confused with the policies they are asked to enforce, neither should they congratulated for enforcing policies that are not constitutional or serve the end of protecting the freedom of Americans.

    It is more than possible, in fact likely, that policy they are asked to enforce will not be in the interest of protecting the liberty or safety of American citizens.

    While I respect them for their willingness to sacrifice to the end of protecting liberty and safety and this mutes individual criticisms, soldiers are not morons and should consider the ends to which they are going to be put by the largely incompetent civilian leadership before they join the military.

    These states are mere fact. They do not condone or encourage "spitting " on soldiers as some here have irrationally suggested. They are mere clarifications of an issue that too many people onone side of the debate concerning the use of the militaery try and cloud by playing on the emotions of the patriotic and overly/personally involved.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-27-2011, 03:28 PM
  2. Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document
    By MaynardMeek in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2006, 03:49 AM
  3. How to document cycles?
    By elijah_123 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-20-2003, 02:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in