Remembering that the DHO came up with an assessment, not policy, here is a quote from it: “This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the
Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the
phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States.”
We should note that DHO already did an assessment of left-wing radical groups, but there was no mention of that.
The operative phrases from the assessment are: “The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” It then lists some examples from the past. Note, it says efforts are being made by the extremist groups to recruit, NOT that the troops (who have plenty to be disgruntled about) are lining up. If it’s an area of concern, who would be stupid enough to ignore it?
It would seem that the lesson learned would be to focus on “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities,” and better help them transition from military to civilian life.
Everyone keeps talking about “right-wing” this and “Conservative nut” that. What about what leftists believe? What about what liberals and atheists believe. I think I’ve found it. See if it makes any sense.
http://www.gerv.net/poetry.html
Read the section marked “The Creed”. It’s actually an out-of print poem called “The Homeless Mind” by Steve Turner.
^ the problem with truth is that when you see it, but spin it to your own agenda, it is no longer truth.
In that vein, look again at the ‘toon and the “memo” it comments on – which said that radical groups are preying on returning and vulnerable vets, NOT that vets are considered a threat.
“Danny Boy - Read page 2 - last paragraph and most of page 7.”
I read page 2, last paragraph and all of page 7. I didn’t see where they were targeting vets. They mentioned vets as a possible target of violent groups and that we should target the violent groups to protect our vets from radicalizing them, but I didn’t see anything that said that VETS THEMSELVES were the targets of investigation.
“What about what leftists believe? What about what liberals and atheists believe. I think I’ve found it. See if it makes any sense. http://www.gerv.net/poetry.html ”
It doesn’t because it’s not true. It’s a fantasy concocted by the right (or the anti-atheist) to smear and otherwise slander/libel those they disagree with.
“If report did not specifically say, how come DHS lady has to further explain day after day”
Because folks like you constantly mislead about what it says. The “DHS lady” (Napolitano) said that they were NOT targeting vet groups for investigation, but people like you say they are, without evidence, for your own agenda. When it’s pointed out to you, you ignore it and continue to mislead about what it says. I think Napolitano should say, “It doesn’t say what you think it says,” and leave it there. Allow the right-wing to whip itself into a frenzy and collapse in on itself while the rest of us go on to improving the country in which we ALL live.
“Anything drawn or said you don’t agree with is a “lie” by your definition.”
No. A “lie” by my definition is anything that is not the truth.
“[The memo] said that radical groups are preying on returning and vulnerable vets, NOT that vets are considered a threat.”
Daniel - You must have skipped this part on page 7:
“The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups.”
The vets ARE a threat when they join these groups!
I think I see where you’re getting at. If a vet joins an extremist organization or becomes a “lone wolf”, acting without any group affiliation, and the DHS investigates this vet because of that, therefore, DHS considers vets a threat.
Well at least the government’s response to the Tea parties was only calling the conservatives right wing terrorists who might be able to recruit ex-vets. Jeanine Gerafalo (Don’t know how to spell her name) called everyone that attended a tea party an ignorant racist and inferred they were gay by playing on the word Tea Bagging.
I really do not know why they are so dead set on attacking conservatives they have won almost every election possible; what are they so afraid of?
“Well at least the government’s response to the Tea parties was only calling the conservatives right wing terrorists who might be able to recruit ex-vets.”
@ Howgozit: Napolitano had to come out and explain what the memo meant because too many people (apparently yourself, for example) were excited about distorting it for ulterior purposes. This cartoon is a good example of that.
danielsangeo about 15 years ago
No. Vets aren’t being targeted. That’s a lie. The memo doesn’t say anything about targeting vets.
kellykid about 15 years ago
Wow - you must have missed it!
Dtroutma about 15 years ago
Okay, the source is the “Moony Madness News”. ‘nough said.
danielsangeo about 15 years ago
“You can’t recognize the truth when you see it.”
Alright, here’s the memo. Point to me where it says that the government is targeting vets:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
Go ahead. Give page number, quote it, do whatever you have to do to show evidence for the assertion that vets are being targeted by DHS.
anng628 about 15 years ago
Danny Boy - Read page 2 - last paragraph and most of page 7.
Michael Peterson Premium Member about 15 years ago
You left out a headline on that paper: Anniversary of OK City bombing observed.
cdward about 15 years ago
Remembering that the DHO came up with an assessment, not policy, here is a quote from it: “This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States.”
We should note that DHO already did an assessment of left-wing radical groups, but there was no mention of that.
The operative phrases from the assessment are: “The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” It then lists some examples from the past. Note, it says efforts are being made by the extremist groups to recruit, NOT that the troops (who have plenty to be disgruntled about) are lining up. If it’s an area of concern, who would be stupid enough to ignore it?
It would seem that the lesson learned would be to focus on “the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities,” and better help them transition from military to civilian life.
LibrarianInTraining about 15 years ago
Everyone keeps talking about “right-wing” this and “Conservative nut” that. What about what leftists believe? What about what liberals and atheists believe. I think I’ve found it. See if it makes any sense.
http://www.gerv.net/poetry.html
Read the section marked “The Creed”. It’s actually an out-of print poem called “The Homeless Mind” by Steve Turner.
BirishB about 15 years ago
^ the problem with truth is that when you see it, but spin it to your own agenda, it is no longer truth.
In that vein, look again at the ‘toon and the “memo” it comments on – which said that radical groups are preying on returning and vulnerable vets, NOT that vets are considered a threat.
danielsangeo about 15 years ago
“Danny Boy - Read page 2 - last paragraph and most of page 7.”
I read page 2, last paragraph and all of page 7. I didn’t see where they were targeting vets. They mentioned vets as a possible target of violent groups and that we should target the violent groups to protect our vets from radicalizing them, but I didn’t see anything that said that VETS THEMSELVES were the targets of investigation.
“What about what leftists believe? What about what liberals and atheists believe. I think I’ve found it. See if it makes any sense. http://www.gerv.net/poetry.html ”
It doesn’t because it’s not true. It’s a fantasy concocted by the right (or the anti-atheist) to smear and otherwise slander/libel those they disagree with.
“If report did not specifically say, how come DHS lady has to further explain day after day”
Because folks like you constantly mislead about what it says. The “DHS lady” (Napolitano) said that they were NOT targeting vet groups for investigation, but people like you say they are, without evidence, for your own agenda. When it’s pointed out to you, you ignore it and continue to mislead about what it says. I think Napolitano should say, “It doesn’t say what you think it says,” and leave it there. Allow the right-wing to whip itself into a frenzy and collapse in on itself while the rest of us go on to improving the country in which we ALL live.
“Anything drawn or said you don’t agree with is a “lie” by your definition.”
No. A “lie” by my definition is anything that is not the truth.
“[The memo] said that radical groups are preying on returning and vulnerable vets, NOT that vets are considered a threat.”
Thank you!
anng628 about 15 years ago
Daniel - You must have skipped this part on page 7:
“The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today. — (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups. — (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.” — (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.”
The vets ARE a threat when they join these groups!
danielsangeo about 15 years ago
I think I see where you’re getting at. If a vet joins an extremist organization or becomes a “lone wolf”, acting without any group affiliation, and the DHS investigates this vet because of that, therefore, DHS considers vets a threat.
Got it.
waitliftin about 15 years ago
Well at least the government’s response to the Tea parties was only calling the conservatives right wing terrorists who might be able to recruit ex-vets. Jeanine Gerafalo (Don’t know how to spell her name) called everyone that attended a tea party an ignorant racist and inferred they were gay by playing on the word Tea Bagging.
I really do not know why they are so dead set on attacking conservatives they have won almost every election possible; what are they so afraid of?
danielsangeo about 15 years ago
“Well at least the government’s response to the Tea parties was only calling the conservatives right wing terrorists who might be able to recruit ex-vets.”
And they didn’t even do that.
MasterofSergeants about 15 years ago
Anyone can be potential threat. Why should I care about DHS’s label?
tpenna about 15 years ago
@ Howgozit: Napolitano had to come out and explain what the memo meant because too many people (apparently yourself, for example) were excited about distorting it for ulterior purposes. This cartoon is a good example of that.