• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Re: Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism

dclxvinoise said:
Resources, but not assertions. They came up with those assertions on their own.
Click to expand...

Resources like "information" and "analysis." My guess is that DHS is the guiding hand of the "fusion centers."
 
dclxvinoise said:
How does NRL fit the definition?
Click to expand...

Footnote on page 2 of 9

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.





And as I said--Texas is in trouble due to the sentence preceding the one in bold.
 
Last edited:
Re: Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism

BulletWounD said:
Resources like "information" and "analysis." My guess is that DHS is the guiding hand of the "fusion centers."
Click to expand...

All we know is that they got resources from the DHS, there is no proof to suggest they got more.
 
Felicity said:
Footnote on page 2 of 9

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.





And as I said--Texas is in trouble due to the sentence preceding the one in bold.
Click to expand...

The key word here is may. It doesn't say that it does include these groups. Are you going to tell me that there aren't extremist anti-abortion and anti-immigration groups out there?
 
dclxvinoise said:
The key word here is may. It doesn't say that it does include these groups. Are you going to tell me that there aren't extremist anti-abortion and anti-immigration groups out there?
Click to expand...

So it says may. Hey man--it says MAY!:shock:
 
dclxvinoise said:
Yeah which means that your assertions are incorrect.
Click to expand...

NRL fits the definition...it is a single issue group opposed to abortion. It MAY be considered an extremist group by that definition. I don't get what you're arguing here--it's right there in black print! It IS a footnote defining the meaning they intend.
 
Felicity said:
It MAY be considered an extremist group by that definition.
Click to expand...

I think the more important question here then is... is it then? Out of curiosity, anyone here compared the language used in this report to the one released, IIRC, about a month earlier on left-wing extremists? I do remember that it included some notes on eco-terrorists and stuff like that.
 
Felicity said:
NRL fits the definition...it is a single issue group opposed to abortion. It MAY be considered an extremist group by that definition. I don't get what you're arguing here--it's right there in black print! It IS a footnote defining the meaning they intend.
Click to expand...

It fits the definition of a single issue group. You asserted earlier that it fit the definition of an extremist group according to this report. That assertion is wrong because it says that extremist groups may include single issue groups such as anti-abortion and anti-immigration groups. There's a world of difference between what you were asserting earlier and what you are saying in this post.
 
dclxvinoise said:
It fits the definition of a single issue group. You asserted earlier that it fit the definition of an extremist group according to this report. That assertion is wrong because it says that extremist groups may include single issue groups such as anti-abortion and anti-immigration groups. There's a world of difference between what you were asserting earlier and what you are saying in this post.
Click to expand...

Why would they not use "may?" If you're always trying to cover your ass (as politicians are wont to do), wouldn't leaving it open like that be the way to go? If they don't consider the NRL an extremist group, why not be specific and name the groups they think are?
 
dclxvinoise said:
It fits the definition of a single issue group. You asserted earlier that it fit the definition of an extremist group according to this report. That assertion is wrong because it says that extremist groups may include single issue groups such as anti-abortion and anti-immigration groups. There's a world of difference between what you were asserting earlier and what you are saying in this post.
Click to expand...

:confused: No--I'm saying this document pommulgates a definition of "extremist groups" that can include NRL and the like.

The definition in the footnote is to clarify what is extremist. Yes--it says "may"--are we not to be suspicious of the govenment and follow blindly like sheep? "May" is a very dangerous word.
 
don'ttreadonme said:
Why would they not use "may?" If you're always trying to cover your ass (as politicians are wont to do), wouldn't leaving it open like that be the way to go? If they don't consider the NRL an extremist group, why not be specific and name the groups they think are?
Click to expand...

Because groups continue to change, shift around, etc. And you are right, these documents do contain very general language. My argument is that Felicity's previous assertion of the NRL being considered an extremist organization simply because it's a single issue group is wrong.
 
7thKeeper said:
I think the more important question here then is... is it then? Out of curiosity, anyone here compared the language used in this report to the one released, IIRC, about a month earlier on left-wing extremists? I do remember that it included some notes on eco-terrorists and stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Link? I'd like to see it.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Because groups continue to change, shift around, etc. And you are right, these documents do contain very general language. My argument is that Felicity's previous assertion of the NRL being considered an extremist organization simply because it's a single issue group is wrong.
Click to expand...

Weren't they specific with left-wing groups? :confused:

The vague wording is purposeful and I agree with Felicity here (not surprisingly). The point of that wording is to cast a huge net.
 
Felicity said:
:confused: No--I'm saying this document pommulgates a definition of "extremist groups" that can include NRL and the like.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are interpreting the report to say that a single issue group is defined as an extremist group simply because it's a single issue group. That is incorrect. It only stated that single issue groups MAY be extremist. That's true, is it not? There are extremist abortion and immigration groups out there. That's my only point.

The definition in the footnote is to clarify what is extremist. Yes--it says "may"--are we not to be suspicious of the govenment and follow blindly like sheep? "May" is a very dangerous word.
Click to expand...

We should be suspicious absolutely. And may can be a dangerous word, but I don't think it is in this particular case.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Because groups continue to change, shift around, etc. And you are right, these documents do contain very general language. My argument is that Felicity's previous assertion of the NRL being considered an extremist organization simply because it's a single issue group is wrong.
Click to expand...

You want me to re-word the OP?

Okay--

:shock: I "may" participate in "right wing extremism" because I belong to National Right to Life? --a single issue group opposed to abortion-- ...


The point is the same.:roll:
 
don'ttreadonme said:
Weren't they specific with left-wing groups? :confused:
Click to expand...

Perhaps they were and that may be why they were more general with this one. I don't know and I don't really care. I don't think that there's anything to be concerned about here. Every group has extremists.
The vague wording is purposeful and I agree with Felicity here (not surprisingly). The point of that wording is to cast a huge net.
Click to expand...

It is done on purpose, but I still don't think it's a cause for concern. Obviously there would have to be other qualifying factors for a single issue group to be considered extremist other than the fact that it's a single issue group.
 
dclxvinoise said:
The problem is that you are interpreting the report to say that a single issue group is defined as an extremist group simply because it's a single issue group. That is incorrect. It only stated that single issue groups MAY be extremist. That's true, is it not? There are extremist abortion and immigration groups out there. That's my only point.
Click to expand...
The question should be WHY are they being so broad and general if they do not intend to apply the definition broadly and generally?



We should be suspicious absolutely. And may can be a dangerous word, but I don't think it is in this particular case.
Click to expand...
Why do you not think so? Is it just a "feeling" or do you have a specific reason to not think they would use the definition broadly if it suited a political purpose?
 
Felicity said:
You want me to re-word the OP?

Okay--

:shock: I "may" participate in "right wing extremism" because I belong to National Right to Life? --a single issue group opposed to abortion-- ...


The point is the same.:roll:
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it said. It said that right wing extremism may include individuals and groups who are dedicated to single issues such as abortion and immigration. Essentially it means that there may be extremist single issue groups out there. It doesn't mean that all single issue groups are extremist or that all people who support single issue groups are extremist. I seriously don't know how you could interpret it that way.
 
Felicity said:
The question should be WHY are they being so broad and general if they do not intend to apply the definition broadly and generally?
Click to expand...

I think they are being cautious. I don't think it's a right wing witch hunt. The moment I see legitimate evidence of such I will condemn their actions. However, what I've seen mostly so far is extreme paranoia.

Why do you not think so? Is it just a "feeling" or do you have a specific reason to not think they would use the definition broadly if it suited a political purpose?
Click to expand...

I don't think so because I'm not prone to wild government conspiracy theories. It seems very far-fetched and absurd to me. Like I said, the moment I see legitimate evidence of it I'll be right there with you ready to condemn it.
 
dclxvinoise said:
No, that's not what it said. It said that right wing extremism may include individuals and groups who are dedicated to single issues such as abortion and immigration. Essentially it means that there may be extremist single issue groups out there. It doesn't mean that all single issue groups are extremist or that all people who support single issue groups are extremist. I seriously don't know how you could interpret it that way.
Click to expand...
Where do I say all actually ARE considered? It is such a broad definition, however that all COULD be considered such, and Napolitano didn't back away from the criticism.

I, however, am more appalled by the way returning vets are characterized. That is just...well, appalling disrespect.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I think they are being cautious. I don't think it's a right wing witch hunt. The moment I see legitimate evidence of such I will condemn their actions. However, what I've seen mostly so far is extreme paranoia.



I don't think so because I'm not prone to wild government conspiracy theories. It seems very far-fetched and absurd to me. Like I said, the moment I see legitimate evidence of it I'll be right there with you ready to condemn it.
Click to expand...
Okay--I'll remember that;)
 
Felicity said:
Link? I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

I'll try to find it for ya. :) I saw it talked about at militaryphotos.net in a thread about this same report.

Ah, think I found it. Just needed to google "report left-wing extremists". Here's two links to the same pdf-file.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-leftwing-extremists-increase-in-cyber-attacks-dated-26-january-2009.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf

I'll have to read the two side-by-side and see how the language differs.
 
Felicity said:
Where do I say all actually ARE considered? It is such a broad definition, however that all COULD be considered such, and Napolitano didn't back away from the criticism.
Click to expand...

Earlier you said that the NRL fits the definition of an extremist group. However, the report doesn't define single issue groups as extremist.

I, however, am more appalled by the way returning vets are characterized. That is just...well, appalling disrespect.
Click to expand...

How is it disrespectful? They aren't even characterized. It says that some right wing groups may target them because of their skills and experience. And are you seriously going to suggest that troops are somehow not susceptible to the same things that all of us are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom