DHS Document on Right Wing Extremism
- 04-17-2009, 03:37 PM
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...
- 04-17-2009, 03:44 PM
- 04-18-2009, 06:35 AM
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.
04-18-2009, 05:50 PM
Read the MIAC report I posted. It says all Ron Paul supporters are potential terrorists.
Waving a "gadsen flag" is terrorists.
04-20-2009, 12:18 AM
04-21-2009, 08:08 AM
You do know this report was initiated and mostly completed under the Bush administration, correct?
04-21-2009, 12:04 PM
04-21-2009, 12:51 PM
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?
04-21-2009, 01:02 PM
04-21-2009, 01:17 PM
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.
04-21-2009, 01:22 PM
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.
The Historic PES Legend
04-21-2009, 02:08 PM
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.
04-21-2009, 02:53 PM
04-21-2009, 06:30 PM
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.
04-21-2009, 08:05 PM
04-22-2009, 09:36 AM
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.
04-22-2009, 09:38 AM
04-22-2009, 09:45 AM
04-22-2009, 09:47 AM
04-22-2009, 02:04 PM
04-22-2009, 02:46 PM
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?"[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."
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.
04-22-2009, 03:59 PM
04-23-2009, 09:44 AM
04-23-2009, 09:46 AM
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' ?
04-23-2009, 11:33 AM
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?
The Historic PES Legend
04-23-2009, 12:19 PM
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.To go through what myself or any other Sailor/Soldier/DevilDog/Airman at least deserves some sort of respect.
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.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.
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.If they cut a fart in the green zone while getting mortared, damn strait they are defending our freedoms while flatulating.
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?
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.Why not stop by the airport and spit on them when they return home?
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.
04-23-2009, 12:45 PM
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.
Last edited by DAdams91982; 04-23-2009 at 02:23 PM.
The Historic PES Legend
04-23-2009, 01:23 PM
04-24-2009, 08:42 AM
04-24-2009, 08:49 AM
04-26-2009, 10:30 PM
So by your logic every soldier that ever accomplished a mission in history should be congratulated?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.
04-27-2009, 07:53 AM
04-27-2009, 07:54 AM
04-27-2009, 09:16 AM
04-27-2009, 09:29 AM
04-27-2009, 01:22 PM
04-27-2009, 05:12 PM
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.
04-27-2009, 05:13 PM
04-27-2009, 05:43 PM
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.
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)
04-28-2009, 07:43 AM
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
- By Hawk in forum General ChatReplies: 5Last Post: 03-27-2011, 02:28 PM
- By MaynardMeek in forum PoliticsReplies: 3Last Post: 06-22-2006, 02:49 AM
- By elijah_123 in forum General ChatReplies: 1Last Post: 03-20-2003, 01:44 PM