Get it right...In my last email I said this report hasn't unhashed any
new "plots" during this administration. I did not say "new groups".
I'm not avoiding my argument that this report is to vague. To my
point, the assessment repeatedly uses the terms "Militia members",
"extremists", "skinheads", "white supremists" in place of the name of
the white supremest group or name of the group the skinheads belong to.
Nowhere in the report could I find the name of the multiple militias it
talks about repeatedly. That maybe good enough for government work,
but....
Show me where in this report it expressly draws a line and
differentiates between law abiding citizens who are Pro 2nd Amendment,
pro legal immigration, federalists AND the "Right Wing Extremists" bent
on "attack planing". If you read the last paragraph of the assessment
you'll find this:
"DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the
next
several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise
in rightwing
extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis
on the political,
economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist
radicalization"
Unfortunately a lot of the "factors" listed are shared by the
founding fathers and Peaceful American Citizens who voted for the other
guy. And your assurances that were safe unless we have these factors
AND are hanging out with "skinheads" isn't as reassuring as if the
report itself actually specifically stated it.
I've got SDS (socialist Derrangement Syndrome).
I fully support Obama, hell of a guy. Like to play him one on one...
I just don't support the methods he employs to achieve his mission.
But I'll try and give him more ataboy's when he does right in my eyes :)
Jarrad
Lance McCulley wrote:
Why do these groups have to be new? Their tactics might be
new prompting a report on their new activities and tactics. Which, by
the way the report discusses their recruiting techniques, is fairly
plausible.
You also said, "But of course, the assessment never names "these
groups" or provides any evidence "these groups" have even been
investigated." But clearly, they did and they have. My previous
post destroys this argument, which is probably why you avoided it and
went another direction. (From it's too vague to it doesn't unhash any new
extremist plots.)
Blah blah"...because I believed that you would understand it still
applied to my overall point."
Your
point was that the assessment is "so vague and generalized" that is can
be applied to any right winger. Well, unless you're hanging out with
Skin-heads, Neo-Nazis, Anti-Semetics, Anti-Hispanics, or stockpiling
explosives, you have nothing to worry about--which, by
the way the 'assessment' clearly pointed out. Your point now is
that it doesn't "unhash any new existing right wing extremist
plots that have been uncovered since the new administration took
office." But the report, as you clearly pointed out, admits this;
and, even goes so far as to say that the groups are recruiting for
larger operations, while also bringing attention to smaller terrorist
cells and rouge militia that might spring up out of desperation.
So, again, how is this different from Bush, other than Bush had to have
attacks happen on his watch before he ordered any reports? Perhaps,
Obama's just ahead of the game and that's what is really pissing off
the loosing side. When did the GOP become such sore loosers?
-Lance
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Jarrad
Reiner <[email protected]>
wrote:
In the first part of my email I specifically said this report
does not unhash any new existing right wing extremist plots that have
been uncovered since the new administration took office.
I did not repeat that qualification in my conclusion sentence
(which you quoted) because I believed that you would understand it
still applied to my overall point. But that's what you get for
assuming....
Jarrad
Sent from my iPhone
Just because they don't give cute acronyms for the specific
groups (neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists) doesn't
mean they weren't being specific. They still named groups, and even
those associated with a particular individual (i.e. Timothy Mc Veigh).
It seems though, that perhaps, the author of this article felt
threatened and that's why he tried to downplay the similarities.
"If they have specific threats from specific groups with evidence than
lets here it." --Jarrad
"A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after
communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to
kill immigrants
crossing into the United States."
"In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons
and
explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those
arrested had
discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack
on Hispanics."
"In two instances in the run-up to the
election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of
some
threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law
enforcement interceded. "
Those are all from the report.
-Lance
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Jarrad
Reiner <[email protected]>
wrote:
How is this any different than Bush's DHS Policies?
(assuming you mean past DHS reports on "leftwing extremism"):
Past DHS and FBI assessments on "left-wing groups" are specific in identifying the exact groups,
causes and the targets of their terrorism,(ALF, ELF, etc).
This new 9 page lists right wing extremists as those that
oppose Obama on immigration, 2nd amendment and welfare, etc... As well
as those who believe, as many of the founders did, in federalism.
This report is so vague and generalized in does not name one specific
extremist group or even one plot that right wing extremists have
hatched since the new administration. The report actually admits that
threats from these groups "have been rhetorical and have not
indicated plans to carry out violent acts". But of course,
the assessment never names "these groups" or provides any evidence
"these groups" have even been investigated.
From the Report
”right wing extremists are antagonistic toward
the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range
of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion
of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms
and use.”
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.
If they have specific threats from specific groups with
evidence than lets here it. But this report does none of that. Its
an assessment that attempts to label and stereotype conservative
beliefs as being "right wing extremist", much like the recent (and
later redacted) Missouri
Law Enforcement Report that those with Ron Paul bumper stickers
maybe "Militia Members" .
Jarrad
On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Lance McCulley wrote:
So, the Bush Admin targets hippies and
the Obama Admin targets hillbillies. Sounds fair and balanced to me. ;-)
On a more serious note, how is this any different than Bush's DHS
policies? Both policies take away liberties and target specific
individuals with enough obscurity that the DHS can imprison anyone for
any period of time without reason. The only 1up for Obama is the fact
that he can't be charged with the creation of such a large government
institution.
-Lance
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Politically Opinionated Outspoken People Expounding Religion" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pooper?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
