- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 9,349
- Reaction score
- 3,947
- Location
- Montana
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
According to this document--NRL fits the definition.
How does NRL fit the definition?
According to this document--NRL fits the definition.
Resources, but not assertions. They came up with those assertions on their own.
How does NRL fit the definition?
Resources like "information" and "analysis." My guess is that DHS is the guiding hand of the "fusion centers."
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.
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?
So it says may. Hey man--it says MAY!:shock:
Yeah which means that your assertions are incorrect.
It MAY be considered an extremist group by that definition.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weren't they specific with left-wing groups?
The vague wording is purposeful and I agree with Felicity here (not surprisingly). The point of that wording is to cast a huge net.
The question should be WHY are they being so broad and general if they do not intend to apply the definition broadly and generally?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.
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?We should be suspicious absolutely. And may can be a dangerous word, but I don't think it is in this particular case.
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:
The question should be WHY are they being so broad and general if they do not intend to apply the definition broadly and generally?
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?
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.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.
Okay--I'll remember thatI 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.
Link? I'd like to see it.
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.