• 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

7thKeeper said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay--I'm looking at it and so far it is going out of it's way to say how "non-violent" these left-wingers are.:rofl
 
I read the whole thing...they do not compare.

Truly--comparatively, the left-wing piece was propaganda for their non-violence when measured against the scary Murrah building reference in the right wing.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Earlier you said that the NRL fits the definition of an extremist group. However, the report doesn't define single issue groups as extremist.
Click to expand...
OMGah, dude--you're hung up on the word "may.":doh


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?
Click to expand...
Have you read it? It's not long...

"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."


do you not recognize what that is suggesting about returning veterans?

There is a whole section called "Disgruntled Military Veterans" --please read the document.
 
It's also an interesting assumption that significant numbers of them would be "disgruntled." They aren't/won't be returning in an atmosphere anything like what followed the large-scale return from Vietnam, either THERE or HERE.

It's true, of course, that SOME have problems.
 
Felicity said:
OMGah, dude--you're hung up on the word "may.":doh
Click to expand...

Yeah I do because there's a world of difference between saying "right wing extremism includes single issue groups" and "right wing extremism may include single issue groups".

Have you read it? It's not long...
"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."

do you not recognize what that is suggesting about returning veterans?

There is a whole section called "Disgruntled Military Veterans" --please read the document.
Click to expand...

Yes I did read it. I still don't find it disrespectful. Veterans are just as susceptible to things as the rest of us are. While I respect them and thank them heartily for their service I'm not going to place them on an absurdly high super-human pedestal.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Yeah I do because there's a world of difference between saying "right wing extremism includes single issue groups" and "right wing extremism may include single issue groups".
Click to expand...
No--there is no significant difference. Homeland Security is defining who may be home grown terrorists. If you MAY be one, they are looking at you. NRL MAY be one based on the way HS is defining the parameters.

Yes I did read it. I still don't find it disrespectful. Veterans are just as susceptible to things as the rest of us are. While I respect them and thank them heartily for their service I'm not going to place them on an absurdly high super-human pedestal.
Click to expand...
Sure they are susceptible--do they need to be targeted as suspicious because they are just like the rest of us, but have military training?
 
Felicity said:
Sure they are susceptible--do they need to be targeted as suspicious because they are just like the rest of us, but have military training?
Click to expand...

Sure Muslims are susceptible--do American Muslims need to be targeted because they are just like the rest of us, but follow a different religion than Christianity?
 
TheNextEra said:
Sure Muslims are susceptible--do American Muslims need to be targeted because they are just like the rest of us, but follow a different religion than Christianity?
Click to expand...

Well--aside from the false "reason" you give for possible profiling of Arab Americans, that's not really even comparable to targeting those men and women who risk their lives in defense of the nation that then wants to investigate them for terrorist activities upon their return home.:roll:
 
Felicity said:
No--there is no significant difference. Homeland Security is defining who may be home grown terrorists. If you MAY be one, they are looking at you. NRL MAY be one based on the way HS is defining the parameters.

Sure they are susceptible--do they need to be targeted as suspicious because they are just like the rest of us, but have military training?
Click to expand...

Concider this from a veteran. You are willing to fight and die for your country, and a certain government starts screwing up the very country you are still willing to fight for. :2wave: Veterans are patriots., not for a government, but for a country... God and country..., and certainly not (patriots) for the socialist conversion on the horizon, and the globalism that took our jobs , and our childrens jobs. How many of you voted for globalism to replace the US constitution ? :confused:
 
Rodney said:
Concider this from a veteran. You are willing to fight and die for your country, and a certain government starts screwing up the very country you are still willing to fight for. :2wave: Veterans are patriots., not for a government, but for a country... God and country..., and certainly not (patriots) for the socialist conversion on the horizon, and the globalism that took our jobs , and our childrens jobs. How many of you voted for globalism to replace the US constitution ? :confused:
Click to expand...
IS that what is happening? Is that what veterans believe? Do you have evidence of this?
 
I wonder what HS thinks about members of Gun Owners of America.
 
Felicity said:
IS that what is happening? Is that what veterans believe? Do you have evidence of this?
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no evidence of this, and haven`t hatched any plans of my own. It has occured to me though, that we are "required" by the constitution to fight for our country...not a government that HAS become tyrannous over the people. If you want to blow these thoughts out of proportion, have at it. I`m to close to haveing to move into a tent , to not be appropriately pissed off. It would take a crazy man (or woman) to deprive me the right to be pissed off.... free speach and all that , guaranteed in the constitution. ;)
 
Rodney said:
I have absolutely no evidence of this, and haven`t hatched any plans of my own. It has occured to me though, that we are "required" by the constitution to fight for our country...not a government that HAS become tyrannous over the people. If you want to blow these thoughts out of proportion, have at it. I`m to close to haveing to move into a tent , to not be appropriately pissed off. It would take a crazy man (or woman) to deprive me the right to be pissed off.... free speach and all that , guaranteed in the constitution. ;)
Click to expand...
So...do you belong to an single issue group, like those against abortion or those focused on immigration...or are you a disgruntled veteran?
 
Felicity said:
So...do you belong to an single issue group, like those against abortion or those focused on immigration...or are you a disgruntled veteran?
Click to expand...

What bothers me most about "DP" is the nearly absolute lack of the expression of rage at the colapse of the greatest country on earth. :(
 
Rodney said:
...Just pissed off. Do you give a rats ass, or are you just a troubled feminazi ?
Click to expand...

That's not necessary. You don't have to be pissed off at me--I don't like what's going on either! In that--I'm on your side!



And you calling me feminazi is FUNNY!:rofl You don't know me very well--do you?:mrgreen:
 
Rodney said:
What bothers me most about "DP" is the nearly absolute lack of the expression of rage at the colapse of the greatest country on earth. :(
Click to expand...

Rage is not productive. Vigilance is.
 
Felicity said:
Well--aside from the false "reason" you give for possible profiling of Arab Americans, that's not really even comparable to targeting those men and women who risk their lives in defense of the nation that then wants to investigate them for terrorist activities upon their return home.:roll:
Click to expand...

Right because there are no Muslims in the U.S. military right?
 
Felicity said:
That's not necessary. You don't have to be pissed off at me--I don't like what's going on either! In that--I'm on your side!
===================
And you calling me feminazi is FUNNY!:rofl You don't know me very well--do you?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing!
 
TheNextEra said:
Right because there are no Muslims in the U.S. military right?
Click to expand...

Muslim U.S. military who are possibly right-wing extremists?

What the hell is your point?
 
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...
Left wing extremists were characterized as non-violent, while right wing extremists were characterized as violent.
 
Felicity said:
Rage is not productive. Vigilance is.
Click to expand...

Rage was fery productive in the 60s, but vigilance wont get me locked up... I`ll try a dose. We may be more like minded than I realized. While I am not an active member I was once a member of Right to Life ;Xenia , Ohio. I am a proud, angry veteran, and outspoken more-so than ever before in my life. I have a problem with watching this country go down to the third world level at the hands of socialists. I retract my FEMINAZI comment, made in haste and in error, I suppose. FYI, I am still a right to lifer, and a member of the American Legion, a group which lobies for veterans and the USA. Gotta go to work, at my part-time, temporary job. Thank you for your vigilance. :)
 
American said:
Left wing extremists were characterized as non-violent, while right wing extremists were characterized as violent.
Click to expand...

Wow, did you even read the right wing version? All it states is that there is a possibility among certain aspects of the right wing extremists to become violent depending on the situation. And they named some of those possibilities with some examples. Denying that there is a risk on the right is sticking your head in the sand. But that does not mean that everyone on the right will go out and take potshots at the White House and bomb federal buildings.. far far from it. It even says that there at present are no threats from organized right wing groups against the USA... so come on.
 
PeteEU said:
Wow, did you even read the right wing version? All it states is that there is a possibility among certain aspects of the right wing extremists to become violent depending on the situation. And they named some of those possibilities with some examples. Denying that there is a risk on the right is sticking your head in the sand. But that does not mean that everyone on the right will go out and take potshots at the White House and bomb federal buildings.. far far from it. It even says that there at present are no threats from organized right wing groups against the USA... so come on.
Click to expand...

I think its far more likely that left wing extremists (ie the "Revolutionary Communist Party" who sponsored World Can't Wait) will try to take advantage of the faltering economy to create chaos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom