2nd DHS Domestic Extremism report, guess who they define as a terrorist now?

[American Patriot]

Give me a FUCKING BREAK those sons of bitches. Many of the services train that way, running with backpack and rifle. What the FUCK?

It was a God DAMNED TRAINING RIFLE YOU STUPID MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ryan Ruck]

Just resist the urge to smash your keyboard.

[American Patriot]

New computer. I dont think I would waste the money on that. I'd rather go beat the fuck out of the heavy bag

[Ryan Ruck]

By "heavy bag" do you mean the West Virginia prosecutor?




(That's a joke for anyone wanting to construe it as terrorism!)

[vector7]

Disarming Marines: A New Low in Obama’s Afghan Appeasement



It's been reported that a car bomb exploded when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta landed in Afghanistan earlier today, but no one was injured except the man who was driving the car when it burst into flames. In other news, an even bigger bomb was dropped on our Marines when they were ordered to disarm before entering a building in Afghanistan to hear Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta give a speech.

That’s right: our Marines, who are in a combat zone, were ordered to stack their M-4 rifles over here and their 9mm handguns over there before listening to Panetta ramble on about this and that (I don’t remember Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordering our Marines to be disarmed in his presence, even once).



Although the Obama administration has tried to spin this and make it look like an admittedly unusual yet valid request, the man who carried out the order to disarm the Marines, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, gave some insight into the reason behind this order which even MSNBC commentators labeled "unprecedented." We didn’t want unarmed Afghans who attended the speech to feel out of place.

Gurganus said the “reason to disarm was that the Afghan soldiers in attendance were unarmed and he did not want them treated differently than the Marines.” My guess is that Gurganus’s explanation, as sickening as it is, is still only half the truth. The whole truth probably includes another effort to apologize to Karzai and others for the American soldier who killed 16 Afghans over the weekend.

In their continuous campaign to prostrate the United States before Hamid Karzai and the violent Islamic extremists of Afghanistan, President Obama and Secretary Panetta have signified that the United States government deems U.S. soldiers--Marines, no less--just as dangerous to American lives as Afghan soldiers with a record of killing coalition troops.

Because of one American soldier who snapped, due either to his traumatic brain injury or the stress of warfare, our Departments of Defense/State are treating U.S. troops as though they're just as untrustworthy as the Afghan trainees who also attended Panetta’s speech.

Compared to this one troubled individual, the Afghan trainees as a whole have clearly been infiltrated by insurgents, as at least 76 coalition troops have been murdered by Afghan soldiers in recent months. That fact notwithstanding, our glorious Marines were ordered to sit unarmed in the building next to them and listen to Panetta talk.

Today, the Obama Administration's worldwide apology tour hit a new low.

Marines were forced to disarm themselves inside a combat zone, seemingly to placate a foreign government which uses grievance mongering to excuse murders by its own citizens. With such a high-profile example of distrust and disrespect shown to our troops by their own commanders, what incentive do the people of Afghanistan have to treat them any differently?

[American Patriot]

By "heavy bag" do you mean the West Virginia prosecutor?




(That's a joke for anyone wanting to construe it as terrorism!)

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, I meant the "heavy bag" in the basement next to my weights and weight bench lol

[American Patriot]

Absolute bullshit. Don't disarm MY Marines in a combat zone you fuckers.

It's time to fire these fuckers. ALL OF EM

[vector7]

OBAMA ADDS MILITARY HEROES TO 'ENEMIES LIST'



by Breitbart News 21 Aug 2012 post a comment

President Barack Obama has added military heroes to his “enemies list,” singling out veterans’ groups such as Special Operations for America and Veterans for a Strong America on his campaign website, much as he singled out donors to Republican rival Mitt Romney for attack. Several veterans’ groups have spoken out against the Obama administration’s habit of taking credit for the Osama bin Laden raid and leaking military secrets for political gain--so the Obama campaign is trying to shoot the messenger.

The charge made by the Obama campaign is that the veterans’ groups are “Swift Boat 2.0”--referring to the group that launched a series of ads (never refuted) in 2004 contesting claims by then-Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry about his war record. Left-wing groups aligned with the Obama administration have even gone so far as to call the U.S. Navy Seals “gutless” for their participation in criticism of Obama.


Ryan Zinke, a member of the Montana state Senate and a U.S. Navy SEAL from 1985 to 2008, told Breitbart News: “It's a sad time for America when a President has to resort to bully tactics, intimidation, and misleading personal attacks against anyone who dares to speak out and be heard. The good thing is Americans have a long history of defeating tyrants.”

Joel Arends, recipient of the Bronze Star and chair of Veterans for a Strong America, said:

The president's team is more serious about labeling a group of veterans as “swift boaters” than they are about going after the leakers in his administration. The reality is as simple as it is disturbing - American lives are now in danger because this White House under the leadership of President Obama have leaked vital national security secrets. And instead of appointing a special prosecutor - this President dispatches his campaign team to smear a group of vets looking out for their buddies in uniform. It just shows the lack of seriousness on the part of this administration.


If they want to call us swift boaters because we are looking out for our buddies on the battlefield that's fine with me - we'll take the political body blows for our comrades in order to ensure that the American people fully understand our position on the issue and see the administration's intransigence on this issue.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...o-Enemies-List

[Phil Fiord]

Ya know, I went to the Swift Boat 2.0 link on the BO site. I found it of interest to note they purposely left out the full name of bin laden. They dropped the osama. Is it because it sounds too close to Obama?

[American Patriot]

BaraK Osama.

[vector7]

Companion Thread:

• Obama administration introduced an anti-free speech measure
  
• Obama Administration: 'The War on Islamic Terror Is Over'

Army Says ‘Social Network’ Use Is a Sign of Radicalism

• By Spencer AckermanEmail Author
• October 2, 2012 |
• 6:30 am |
• Categories: Af/Pak, Military Life, Terrorists, Guerillas, Pirates

• Follow @attackerman

Spotting the warning signs of radicalization among U.S. or partnered troops is difficult. Photo: Flickr/soldiersmediacenter

These are some warning signs that that you have turned into a terrorist who will soon kill your co-workers, according to the U.S. military. You’ve recently changed your “choices in entertainment.” You have “peculiar discussions.” You “complain about bias,” you’re “socially withdrawn” and you’re frustrated with “mainstream ideologies.” Your “Risk Factors for Radicalization” include “Social Networks” and “Youth.”

These are some other signs that one of your co-workers has become a terrorist, according to the U.S. military. He “shows a sudden shift from radical to ‘normal’ behavior to conceal radical behavior.” He “inquires about weapons of mass effects.”

He “stores or collects mass weapons or hazardous materials.”

That was the assessment of a terrorism advisory organization inside the U.S. Army called the Asymmetric Warfare Group in 2011, acquired by Danger Room. Its concern about the warning signs of internal radicalization reflects how urgent the Army considers that threat after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people at Ford Hood in 2009. But its “indicators” of radicalization are vague enough to include both benign behaviors that lots of people safely exhibit and, on the other end of the spectrum, signs that someone is so obviously a terrorist they shouldn’t need to be pointed out. It’s hard to tell if the group is being politically correct or euphemistic.

Around the same time, the Asymmetric Warfare Group tried to understand a related problem that now threatens to undermine the U.S. war in Afghanistan: “insider threats” from Afghan troops who kill their U.S. mentors. In another chart, also acquired by Danger Room, an Afghan soldier or policeman ready to snap could be someone who “appears frustrated with partnered nations”; reads “questionable reading materials”; or who has “strange habits.” Admittedly, the U.S. military command isn’t sure what’s causing the insider attacks, but it’ll be difficult for an American soldier who doesn’t speak Pashto or Dari to identify “strange habits” among people from an unfamiliar culture.


A selection from a U.S. military chart on “Radicalization Into Violent Extremism.”

The Asymmetric Warfare Group didn’t purport to identify every factor leading to insider threats, from either Americans or Afghans, and cautions against using its assessments as “checklists.” But it takes a broad view of both the causes of radicalization and what might make someone at risk for it.

Among Afghans, “Cultural Misunderstandings,” “Civilian Casualties,” “Global Events” or “Political Speeches or Upheaval” are listed as potential causes of “Grievance-Based Action.” All of which seems intuitive, but it doesn’t help a commander, who may be preoccupied with the daily rigors of warfighting, from identifying which Afghans represent looming threats. The “observable” indicators of those threats run the gamut from an “abrupt behavioral shift” to “intense ideological rhetoric” to blinking red lights that shouldn’t have to be pointed out to people, like “mak[ing] threatening gestures or verbal threats.”

American behavior is easier for Americans to understand, but the Asymmetric Warfare Group’s list of red flags from American troops is also problematic outside context. Someone who “takes suspicious or unreported travel (inside or outside the United States)” could be linking up with a terrorist group. Or he could be hooking up with a lover, or a going on a road trip with friends, or anything else. Yet that’s an example of “Actions conducted by the subject that would indicate violent or terroristic planning activities that warrant investigation.” The unreported aspect of the travel might be its most blatantly problematic feature.

Similarly, some of the “Risk Factors for Radicalization” identified here apply equally to Normal Soldier and Ticking Time Bomb. Among them: “Youth,” which might be a difficult thing to mitigate against, unless the military wants to take former Pentagon official Rosa Brooks’ unorthodox recruitment advice. “Social Networks” is another, and it’s probably alarmingly coterminous with Youth. Still others: “Emotional Vulnerability,” “Personal Connection to a Grievance” and “Conflict at Work or at Home.”

To be fair to the Group, the bonds within a military unit can make it difficult to be alert to sketchy behavior, let alone the chain of command to it. And that disinclination to report something isn’t limited to the military: The FBI didn’t act on Hasan, even when he e-mailed the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki seeking advice on the legitimacy of murdering Americans.

The Group repeatedly underscores the need to “notify the chain of command” about suspicious behavior, even about
behavior as potentially benign as “chang[ing] type of off-duty clothing.” A “single reportable indicator is enough to report,” it cautions, listing internal Army websites and phone hotlines to report a suspected Hasan 2.0.

If underreporting suspicious behavior is a problem within the U.S. military, soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan probably won’t have a problem reporting their suspicious about Afghans now that over 50 U.S. and allied troops have been killed by their Afghan counterparts this year. Marine Gen. John Allen, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, told 60 Minutes on Sunday that he’s “mad as hell” at the attacks, and while his troops are willing to sacrifice for the war, “we’re not willing to be murdered for it.” Woe to Afghans deemed “reclusive” or engaging in “peculiar discussions” in the eyes of troops who don’t share their culture.

[American Patriot]

oh good grief.

[vector7]

A New Anti-Terror Front? Yes, the Government Thinks It’s ‘Right-Wing Extremists’

By John Fund

January 18, 2013 8:44 A.M.

Comments 292

The world is beset by terrorists — witness the American hostages taken in Algeria this week — but portions of our federal government continue to obsess about alleged home-grown threats from the “far right.”

The Combating Terrorism Center, which is based at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, has issued a new report on its website entitled
“Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right.”

Normally, the center’s activities are focused on al-Qaeda and other violent Islamic groups seeking to topple governments around the world. But the latest report looks inside America itself, and if the center is to be judged by the quality of its analysis in this report, it might be wise for all of us to be skeptical of its other work. The Center’s report lumps together entirely legitimate tea-party-style activists with three groups it says represent “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.” Together all these forces are said to have engaged in 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011, although the report never specifies what makes an attack a “far right” action.

The report’s author is Arie Perliger, who directs the Center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point. I can only imagine what his classes are like as his report manages to lump together every known liberal stereotype about conservatives between its covers.

As Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times, who broke news of the report on Thursday, recounts:

[The Center’s report] says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

The Times quotes a congressional staffer who has served in the military calling the report a “junk study.” The staffer then asked: “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”

This is not the first time elements of the federal government have tried to smear conservatives with sloppy work and a broadbrush analysis.
In 2009, liberals in the Department of Homeland Security prepared a report defining “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of federalism or local control. “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” a footnote in the report warned.

The DHS report bore the ominous title: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Sent to hundreds of local law enforcement officials, the report claimed that “right wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African-American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.”

A casual reader might have concluded that “attack planning” by said groups is inevitable. But the report is silent on just how the groups will attack, and indeed since 2009 there has been precious little evidence any of them ever did.

After much public ridicule, the DHS report vanished from public view as did a similar effort at the same time by the Missouri Highway Patrol, which had to retract its own report linking conservative groups with militia activity and mentioning 2008 presidential candidates Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

No one doubts the existence of racist and hate-filled groups that require monitoring. But both the DHS and West Point reports read as if they were laying the groundwork for a rhetorical attack on mainstream conservatism of the sort that President Clinton launched in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, when he blamed talk radio for stirring up anti-government passions. No one should be surprised if supporters of new gun-control measures begin justifying them by referring to the West Point report.

The Obama administration raised eyebrows back in 2009 when Janet Napolitano’s DHS substituted the phrase “man-made disasters” for the dangers posed by Islamic terrorism. My sources inside Congress tell me they continue to worry that efforts to monitor domestic Muslim extremists as well as interdiction efforts against radical Islamists crossing the U.S. border are sometimes put on the back burner. The government denies this, but it seems to me its protestations would be more persuasive if it spent less time producing half-baked warnings about the danger of “right-wing extremists.”