DHS report: right wing = scum

kallsop said:
Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real

The report:
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

The Brownshirts are watching. Resistance is futile.

Hope and Change, kiss liberty goodbye.
Click to expand...

About That DHS Report on Right-Wing Extremism
Here we go again.

The latest cause for hyperventilation in the right-wing blogosphere is a report from the Department of Homeland Security on the need for vigilance against extreme right-wing groups like Posse Comitatus, militias, “Patriot” groups, and neo-Nazis like the Christian Identity weirdos. Some bloggers, prompted by World Net Daily, are reading this as an attempt to “smear half of the country or more as kooks for criticizing the government’s handling of the economy.”

That’s ludicrous. First, this DHS assessment was begun more than a year ago, before Barack Obama was even nominated. It has absolutely nothing to do with “tea parties,” and it was not done at the behest of the Obama administration.

Second, I’m seeing it brought up repeatedly that the report contains a reference to veterans, mentioning that some of these groups are seeking to recruit them. This is nothing more than a fact, and the report even says that only a tiny number of veterans would join such groups — but that their talents could bring a great deal of capability to the extremists. Has everyone simply forgotten that Timothy McVeigh was a veteran?

The DHS report is not intended to target anyone but the most extreme elements of the far right, and it’s depressing to see so many bloggers jumping to totally unwarranted conclusions.
Click to expand...

This is from a right-wing blog, Little Green Footballs, BTW.
 
Texas said:
The actual backlash is from the part that mentioned returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has already had to back away from that.
Click to expand...
Given your recent record, I'd like to ask you for some substantiation.

I'd also like to know why the hysterical ravings I'm hearing from the likes of Malkin don't count as the "actual backlash".
 
Reading it..

Don't think it's as bad as some make it out to be. Dunno why.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. 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
Click to expand...
Link: http://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/us-dhs-right-wing-extremism-2009.pdf
 
Pardalis said:
In a chaotic situation such as a protest with hundreds of young hooligans throwing stuff, the police can't sort through which is are the criminals and which are the peaceful protesters with alot of accuracy, mistakes are bound to happen.
Click to expand...

The courts disagree with you. The City of Seattle was fined several million dollars precisely because the police should be able to sort through this sort of thing and failure to do so violates their due-process rights.



Then why did he renew it when he had the chance not to?
Click to expand...

He didn't. I'm not sure where you got this information from. There is a battle happening on the Hill more or less right now discussing whether or not the Patriot act needs to be renewed --- but notice it's happening on the Hill, not the White House.
 
theprestige said:
From what I can tell of the article you linked to, this is a simple case of bureaucratic overreach, and does not particularly reflect the policies or plans of anybody in authority.
Click to expand...

There are a number of citations in post #84 that suggest otherwise, at least in terms of the mass arrests under Bush's watch.

As such, I'm sure the Obama administration has already done similar things many times over, with about as much cause for concern.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm sure you can find two or three examples, then. Otherwise, this is simply an unfounded assertion.
 
drkitten said:
The courts disagree with you. The City of Seattle was fined several million dollars precisely because the police should be able to sort through this sort of thing and failure to do so violates their due-process rights.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the police should be charged for doing their job, I had a chance to look further at your links and you seem to be right about the facts.

He didn't. I'm not sure where you got this information from. There is a battle happening on the Hill more or less right now discussing whether or not the Patriot act needs to be renewed --- but notice it's happening on the Hill, not the White House.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure how this argument started. Heck, I like Obama, I just don't like the systematic demonisation of Bush.
 
drkitten said:
September 20, 2001 -- "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
November 6, 2001 -- "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Shall I continue?
Click to expand...

As someone said earlier, he was talking about the countries that harbored terror groups, not his political opponents at home.
 
Pardalis said:
As someone said earlier, he was talking about the countries that harbored terror groups, not his political opponents at home.
Click to expand...

No, the first quote was specifically directed to a joint session of Congress. I.e. American politicians, including his democratic opponents in Washington.

So once again, you are displaying total disregard for the facts. But thanks for playing. I'll let you know when you get something right.
 
Pardalis said:
I don't understand why the police should be charged for doing their job,
Click to expand...

Ignorance on your part doesn't alter the legally established facts.

I had a chance to look further at your links and you seem to be right about the facts.
Click to expand...

Then re-read the links. It's hard to get things like Federal Court judgements wrong, but you managed to.

I'm not even sure how this argument started.
Click to expand...

You made stupid comments without regard to the actual facts, and I called you on it.

Case in point:

I just don't like the systematic demonisation of Bush.
Click to expand...

Criticizing Bush for documented political abuses under his control is not "systematic demonisation." The facts are what they are, and whining about them after the fact won't change them.
 
drkitten said:
No, the first quote was specifically directed to a joint session of Congress. I.e. American politicians, including his democratic opponents in Washington.

So once again, you are displaying total disregard for the facts. But thanks for playing. I'll let you know when you get something right.
Click to expand...

Well, you be the judge, his quote in context, with the paragraphs before and after:

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.


And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.


From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.
Click to expand...
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

I think he was referring to nations who may be harboring terrorism, not his political opponents at home.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
From what I can tell of the article you linked to, this is a simple case of bureaucratic overreach, and does not particularly reflect the policies or plans of anybody in authority.
Click to expand...
However it was Bush administration policy that initiated domestic surveillance of innocent citizens.
As such, I'm sure the Obama administration has already done similar things many times over, with about as much cause for concern.
Click to expand...
A factless tu quoque.
 
drkitten said:
DrBaltar said:
Redtail said:
Ooohhh Nostalgia. I remember when all it took to be terrorist scum was to disagree with Bush.
Click to expand...
Examples?
Click to expand...
September 20, 2001 -- "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
November 6, 2001 -- "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Shall I continue?
Click to expand...
Not unless you want to provide examples of Bush labeling people in the US terrorists who did not agree with Bush.

Context is everything. This thread is about domestic terrorism. The people potentially being labeled terrorists are right wing extremists in America. Or are you suggesting that Redtail was trying to hijack the thread and talk about foreign terrorists? Bush's speech was to other nations. Nations who are well aware that islamic extremists are in their country plotting against the US and it's allies. By allowing terrorists to operate in their countries, those countries become an accomplice to any acts of terror done by them.

In the future, try and keep context in mind to avoid embarrassing mistakes like this.
 
drkitten said:
No, the first quote was specifically directed to a joint session of Congress. I.e. American politicians, including his democratic opponents in Washington.
Click to expand...
You should check your facts:

From a CNN transcript:
Bush said:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Since you say it best, I'll just quote you:
drkitten said:
So once again, you are displaying total disregard for the facts. But thanks for playing. I'll let you know when you get something right.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom