Today, a horrible crime was committed by an extremist who, in cold blood, gunned down a security guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. There is no excuse for such a crime, and I have no tolerance for anyone who thinks the same way or supports this act of hate.
I pray for the family of Stephen T Johns, the security guard killed in the attack, and that justice is served swiftly and coldly against this killer.
Within minutes of discovering the identity and possible onetime military affiliation of the shooter, Shepard Smith, of Fox News, made the following astonishing leap of logic: that this shooting validates the contents of the DHS report labeling veterans as potential right wing extremists. A good synopsis of Smith’s statements and their context to the DHS report can be found at Mudville Gazette. In one statement, Smith and Fox News advanced the damage already caused by the original report. Now, the leftist blogsphere is alight with the very kind of rhetoric that has spilled into every channel of media blovating, including now Fox.
Unfortunately for Smith and all of the other people out there who want to desperately believe that those who serve in the military, support the idea smaller government, and believe that people should be able to believe whatever they want even if it offends others, the murderer in this case proves nothing about the DHS report. The murderer was 89 years old, may have never served in the military (the only available confirmation of his service is his own claim that he served), but was an extremist in every other sense. The report, on the other hand, is explicit in its reference to modern veterans returning from places like Iraq and Afghanistan:
(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing 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.
–from Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (.pdf)
Now, it no longer matters what the facts of the shooting are and what the DHS report said. The cultural meme that veterans are dangerous extremists who murder people out of hatred has been created and will continue to persist. Now, people who do not bother to differentiate between those with legitimate philosophical disagreements about beliefs and politics will be even more invigorated in their intolerance of people with differing views.
It does not help that too many people out there in the ether of the internet take their disagreements to extremes when responding to such events on both extremes of political belief. People sending email to Shepard Smith today only reinforced the stereotypes too many people have of the conservatively minded as surely as liberals have done in past instances, only proving how uninformed and reactionary they are themselves.
We live in a time of strong, sometimes even radical, disagreements about the way forward for our nation and for the world. I have been a part of that debate for a long time, and it saddens me more than I can convey with these words that our national discourse has degraded into shouting and increasingly hostile accusations against one side or the other. Certainly, I believe that some of the things being done by liberals are destructive to our country, and I believe it is my place to argue against those actions with the hope that something like the middle ground–and often the best–solutions can be achieved.
However, I do not now, nor will I ever condone violence against those with whom I disagree either now or ever. The threshold for taking up arms in support or opposition is very high, something anyone who has sworn the oath to protect and defend the Constitution should inherently understand.
The distinction between this view and that of the murder in question is rapidly being lost, and with that loss comes the loss of the very things the veterans now being steadily maligned hold dear. I ask the same question now as when this idea first reared its ugly head: what happens when those who have decided that what their nation stands for is worth fighting for are no longer willing to do so because what they believe in has become criminal? How can any nation survive criminalizing a way of thinking? How can any nation survive criminalizing its defenders?
First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
We are sliding down a very slippery slope. God help us all.
Posts
19 comments:
Denny, please stop. You are causing real damage to your reputation here. First, of the two blogs you chose to represent the "liberal blogosphere," only the first, Crooks and Liars, contains even a passing reference in the comments to veterans. In each of the two comments that uses the word "veteran," the word is not used to impugn veterans at all. So both of these sources, upon which you premise that this horrible meme is being set up, do NOTHING to support your claim.
Further, you continue to -- at this point I have to conclude -- willfully misread the DHS language. The very quote you presented makes it clear as clear can be that the focal point of the report is the concern that already extremist groups will attempt to radicalize veterans. So, counter to your claim that the report impugns veterans as dangerous radicals, the report makes clear that veterans will be targets for radicalization -- that means that they are not currently seen to be radical.
Please stop insisting that the DHS report smears veterans as radicals and extremists. It does no such thing and your hyperventilating about this supposed insult only serves to do the very thing you claim to be angry about: it keeps the meme alive.
David, what damage to my reputation am I causing exactly?
I know that you, and many other people, disagree with the point that I am trying to make. In a way, that is kind of my point. It is the very dismissal of the idea that there might be a problem here that needs to be dealt with both governmentally and culturally.
Consider two things about your own response:
First, the problem is that no one on these liberal blogs made any attempt to make a distinction between the extremist who committed murder and the veterans mentioned in the DHS report and by Shepard Smith who are not radicalized. This is the same sin of omission that you, among others, constantly point out that I make when I do not point out the same kind of wrong unfairly happening to some liberal. With the acceptance of that lack of distinction, veterans are the "right-wing extremists" mentioned in those blogs and elsewhere. That process is exactly how cultural memes get started, and this one is developing before our eyes.
Second, I have never claimed that the report itself said that all veterans are radical. Instead, the report opened the door for people, including the government and liberals generally opposed to the military and specifically opposed to current military activities, to make that connection themselves. That connection was made yesterday, and thousands, if not millions, of people jumped on the band wagon that it must be true.
Perhaps this is the point that I should ask you to please stop assuming that you have the corner on understanding how these kinds of things work and how they affect the people being targeted, but I would much rather convince you than ask you to stop.
Interestingly, my quotation of the section of the report actually supports what you are saying rather than contradicts it. My point was that the shooter had no relationship to the veterans that the DHS report is concerned about being radicalized, so his actions in no way proved that the report was valid.
I did not claim here that the DHS report, by itself, caused this to happen. Instead, I point out that the DHS report opened the door for the linkage of the report to the actions of someone who did not even fit the category created by the report, but who is now culturally linked to what the report had to say.
It's kind of interesting when the idea develops that they way for a group being unfairly targeted to end that targeting is to ignore it and hope it goes away. I doubt anyone would suggest that young Arab men or environmental activists should do the same, so why should veterans?
Some may want to deny there is a problem, but how does someone then explain things like this?
How did I cause this to happen by pointing out that it was happening? Now there's a strange logical twist.
Speaking of outrage, why is there no outrage about the murder of a military member by someone who claims he did it because of religion?
Denny, you raise a fair question about whether there is any damage being caused to your reputation. That was hyperbole on my part. First, you and I are the only ones commenting and probably the only ones reading the blog, so you probably don't have much of a reputation to hurt and, further, you couldn't possibly hurt your reputation with me. :)
"It is the very dismissal of the idea that there might be a problem here that needs to be dealt with both governmentally and culturally."
You think the government should step in and keep you from saying crazy things like this? That's new. (Again, :) )
"the problem is that no one on these liberal blogs made any attempt to make a distinction between the extremist who committed murder and the veterans mentioned in the DHS report and by Shepard Smith who are not radicalized."
Two things in response. The first is that I didn't see Smith's comments that your Mudville post supposedly summarized. Did you see it? It wasn't at all clear to me from the Mudville post that they had presented an accurate summary. I did see the other Fox video they posted and saw nothing objectionable in it at all. They basically said the same thing I'm saying: "Calm down; the DHS report isn't impugning veterans."
Second, the posters and commentors at the liberal blogs didn't make a distinction because there was no distinction to be made. They didn't mention ANYTHING about veterans, neither to distinguish the good from the bad or to even note that this had anything to do with veterans. Their emphasis was on the accuracy of the DHS report that largely warned of lone wolf, right-wing extremist activities. But just so you don't accuse me of not addressing a very important issue and making the distinction, let me just say that night and day are not the same thing, and we should not impugn the day by suggesting that it will be dark. That non sequitor makes about as much sense as it would have made for those blogs to bring up veterans. Had they done so, I suspect you'd have pilloried them for extending the meme.
"This is the same sin of omission that you, among others, constantly point out that I make when I do not point out the same kind of wrong unfairly happening to some liberal."
Let me think about this some more. I don't think it is, but if it is I'll cop to it. I'll agree that it is the same if you can find mention on those blogs about how unfair the January DHS report was to left-wing groups. Without that, there is no parallel. Plus, we've both agreed that you make no pretense at fairness and balance anyway, so it's kind of a non-issue either way.
"With the acceptance of that lack of distinction, veterans are the "right-wing extremists" mentioned in those blogs and elsewhere."
This is circular logic. You and the hyperventilating veteran crowd (which shouldn't be construed to mean all veterans, only the crazy ones who insist on being upset about this phantom problem) are the only ones who accept or even see the lack of distinction. Believe that this makes you a better person or more perceptive or whatever it is you think you are here, but all it makes you is a very small minority looking for an excuse to be upset. No rational, reasonable person who has read the DHS report or who has seen most mainstream reporting on the issue thinks there is a horde of psycho vets out there trying to hurt them. We just don't. There is no meme.
"Instead, the report opened the door for people, including the government and liberals generally opposed to the military and specifically opposed to current military activities, to make that connection themselves. That connection was made yesterday, and thousands, if not millions, of people jumped on the band wagon that it must be true."
Again, I haven't seen Smith's commentary, so maybe you have a point about that specific instance, but otherwise I still think you (and those other beleagured vets) are the only ones making the connection.
"stop assuming that you have the corner on understanding how these kinds of things work and how they affect the people being targeted"
I'm glad you would rather convince me because I reject that characterization. It is the ground you always retreat to when you fail to convince me. I've heard it from others too: "You need to admit that other people might know something too." A) No, I don't and B) Especially when they haven't demonstrated that they really know something.
Let's be clear: I don't need to tell you that you have every right to feel as put upon and offended as you want to about anything you want to. That is not open to debate. I support your right to be as crazy offended as you want to be. All I'm saying is that you're trying too hard and being far too sensitive about it. I'm not sure what your motives (if this is the result of a motive) or what it is exactly that makes you so sensitive to this (in my opinion) imagined slight, but the objective facts (as opposed to your subjective reaction) do not support the weight of your indignation. In my opinion, this makes you look really reactionary and, frankly, a bit foolish. (Note, I am not saying that you are a fool.)
"My point was that the shooter had no relationship to the veterans that the DHS report is concerned about being radicalized, so his actions in no way proved that the report was valid."
Perhaps this is my best shot at making my point. This whole statement (above) is premised on your (in my opinion false) belief that the focal point of the report or even the reporting of the shooting is about veterans. It simply isn't so. The point of the report is about extremists, that is what the vase majority of people who have read it or, I dare say, heard about it think it is saying, and therefore when people say "this event proves that the report is valid" they are referring to the actions of right-wing extremists and not to veterans.
"It's kind of interesting when the idea develops that they way for a group being unfairly targeted to end that targeting is to ignore it and hope it goes away."
Who is saying this? Where is this idea being represented? I certainly am not saying it or representing it. I'm not asking you to ignore a situation in which you are being unfairly targeted; I'm saying you are NOT being targeted, unfairly or otherwise. I'm not sure why you're working so hard to believe that someone is out to get you. That sounds really paranoid to me.
To summarize, if that action is possible, why I have reacted both to the DHS report and to the events surrounding the shooting at the Holocaust Memorial museum I present the following:
I, along with quite a few military veterans, both still serving and not, share not only our status as veterans but a common set of values, ideas, and beliefs. Our problem has been, for some time, that at least some of our values, ideas, and beliefs are also shared by people who are, as was stated earlier, fucking nuts.
Over time, equivalencies have been made between the overall values, ideas, and beliefs of veterans like myself and those other people. The DHS report is not, in itself, the problem so much as the accumulation of thinking, especially by some on the left, that led to the report being phrased the way that it was (yes, I understand that the Bush admin commissioned the report).
Add in on top of that accumulation, including the DHS report, comes the next stage of that accumulation in the form of an interchange between two generally respected reporters (Catherine Herridge and Shepard Smith) in which the fact that the shooter had been identified as a veteran caused Smith to remark that the "DHS saw this coming and now it has begun."
What has begun, in my view and in the view of many veterans like me is the systematic attempt on the part of some who disagree with the values, ideas, and beliefs that we hold dear to marginalize and, in some cases, criminalize those beliefs.
It is that systematic attempt that I, and others (I want to emphasize for anyone else reading this that I am not alone in this thinking), are responding against. I think that it is somewhat ironic that when the right has been guilty of the same kind of behavior in the past (swiftboating is a great example, or pretty much anything Rush or Hannity say), the outcry against it is swift and loud, but when someone on the right points out something is happening to them, the accusation is often that there is no cause for outrage, that the threat is imagined, and that those speaking out against it are paranoid.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_re_us/us_holocaust_museum_shooting
Only one example, but the AP is widely reprinted in dailies across the country -- nary a mention of this dude's "veteran" status.
***
You say the report itself is not the problem but that it's wording is. This might be a good summary, but it doesn't do anything to establish that there is anything actually wrong with the wording. Again, the report makes clear to the objective reader that the concern is about right-wing extremists being able to recruit those few veterans that might find the extreme views attractive because of an accumulation of reasons. It in NO way suggests that veterans as a whole are unstable, extremist or even more innocuously, right-wing.
That said, I suppose if you already believe that someone is out to get you, then you might read into it that you're being attacked.
And trying to equate your reaching interpretation of this document with the swiftboating that directly called a man a liar, a coward, and un-American is about as false a comparison as I've seen you make.
David, your responses to this issue continue to make me glad that I decided to bring the conversation to another forum like Contributing Factor, because your statement that "trying to equate [my] reaching interpretation of this document with the swiftboating that directly called a man a liar, a coward, and un-American is about as false a comparison as [you]'ve seen [me] make." proves to me that the nature of what is happening with the systematic vilification of veterans is succeeding.
First of all, I did not make that claim singly about the DHS report, but about the DHS report as part of an overall, systematic trend on the part of a few to portray veterans in a certain way.
Second, the rest of the evidence, which the DHS report and Smith's comments now join, is very much like swiftboating. You can take Kerry's own comments about getting an education so that you don't get stuck in Iraq. You can take John Murtha's horrible accusations against the Marines in the Haditha incident, all of who have been exonerated. You can take the Moveon.org "General Betrayus" ad in the New York Times. You can take the nearly endless litany of anti-military, anti-veteran rhetoric from organizations like Code Pink, people like Cindy Sheehan, and the innumerable weblogs and websites that target against veterans on a daily basis.
Finally, I can note the fact that people immediately seize on the fact that, arbitrarily, two attacks by extremists whose views are traditionally labeled "right-wing" as proof that the DHS report was necessary, while the next time a group like ELF or someone commits an act of so-called "left-wing" terrorism, the similar report will probably never be mentioned.
I understand your skepticism, to an extent, about all of this because there is no reason for you to be paying attention to any of this, nor is there any reason for you to have participated in the accumulation of evidence that has led me and many people like me to arrive at the conclusions we have. It does concern me, however, that the conclusion of many people, yourself included, is that people like me are delusional, paranoid, misguided, or whatever else. To me, this proves that the overall trend of thinking against veterans is succeeding because none of what is going on now seems out of the norm.
Okay, Denny. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything. You have your beliefs and you have no desire to let them go. I understand. But for the sake of anyone (like us) goofy enough to be following our argument, let's be clear.
You may well have long believed in this concerted effort to tarnish the reputation of veterans and assail the good name of our armed forces. But it is demonstrably untrue that your post referred to this supposed trend or conspiracy. It may have been premised on it, but the post itself clearly places the root of the meme in the DHS report and the response of Smith to the monument shooting:
"In one statement, Smith and Fox News advanced the damage already *caused* by the original report. . . . Unfortunately for Smith and all of the other people out there who want to desperately believe that those who serve in the military, support the idea smaller government, and believe that people should be able to believe whatever they want even if it offends others, the murderer in this case proves nothing about the DHS report." (emphasis mine)
It couldn't be clearer that your beef was with Smith and the DHS report. To claim otherwise now is just an attempt to change the focus after the fact in a desperate attempt to duck my criticisms.
I have no doubt that there exists a number of people out there who do not like the military, who have issues with our country's now constant state of war, who have criticisms of particular members of the military, etc. I'm trying to see the connection, the conspiracy, the coordination. I just can't find it. If you think you have, then soldier on.
However, since you claim you don't own a TV, let me just put your mind at ease about the monument shooting and the coverage. I spent some time last night flipping channels. Both CNN and MSNBC had segments on the shooting. In each case, the shooter's veteran status was NEVER mentioned. In each case, his white-supremecist and racist affiliations were the leading connective tissue used to headline and focus discussion.
In every instance of media coverage of this that I have seen -- from a variety of sources in a variety of media, many on the supposed hating left -- I have seen no emphasis placed on veterans. None. At most, the media has shown itself to be highly dubious about his claims to military experience, and this nugget of information has been tangential to the discussions in every case.
I'm pretty sure I have now found the video of the Shepard Smith segment that it referred to in your post and on Mudville. None of the sites you linked to shared this video, and I know you have not seen it for yourself, so here is the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=5890583&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
Watch the video. About half way through, Smith does indeed mention that Von Brunn was a WWII vet and that he was in Mensa. However, it is clear that the emphasis in the piece is on Von Brunn's racism and the event itself. With about a minute left in the video, Smith mentions that this event -- not Von Brunn's veteran status -- is a reminder of the DHS warning. Herridge then picks it up and references BOTH the January warning about leftist groups and the more recent right-wing warning and squarely places ALL of the emphasis of her comment on LONE WOLF actions. Never once does she hint at or underline a military connection.
Watch the video. If you still think this incident is another example of the conspiracy against veterans, then there is nothing else I can really say on the subject other than to urge you to get professional help.
That link looks like it got cut off. Try going here:
http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/shepard-smith/
Scroll down and on the right side, click on the link titled, "Book of Hate."
David, I have watched the clip, several times, though I watched it again just to be sure. The only other think I have to offer in an effort to convince you is that it is not just me, or even a few people like me, who took the same thing away from what happened with the Smith comments. I think the operative disagreement here hinges on perspective.
I also think your bar for context is very, very high; although, I grant that my two posts here were missing the context that allows most of what I am saying in my defense to appear at all relevant to anyone who does not have my perspective or history.
As to needing "help", I think we could probably all use a little of that. We all have things we come to fervently believe to the point of clouding our objectivity, and it's even possible that this subject is one of those things, though I don't think it is.
By the way, have you watched this clip?
blip.tv/play/AYGIxVONzSo
Or this one?
http://blip.tv/play/AYGIxkmNzSo
David, I just realized, after searching out your specific clip, that we are not talking about the same clip at all. If you are interested in seeing the specific clip I am referring to, please watch the first link below (watching the fill clip provides the full effect). The second link is to someone on Fox responding to the first clip later in the day.
http://blip.tv/play/AYGIxkmNzSo
http://blip.tv/play/AYGIxkmNzSo
Okay, Denny. That first clip was much more direct and required very little reading into. Your immediate reaction to the clip (now that we're both looking at the same one) looks far more sane. The second clip goes to support your claim that others feel the same way, though I'm not sure that's the face I'd want to put on it; that guy was so hysterical in his reaction that he was funny.
You run in different circles than I do, so I can't comment meaningfully about the extent of this mindset. Regardless of how many people see it this way -- and I suspect that there are more than I would imagine and fewer than you would think -- I still believe it is an over-reaction. That said, you are more plugged into the types of people who would react to this at all, so perhaps you have some reason for doing so.
Objectively, though, I can tell you that reactions to the situation, like your post and the guy in the second clip, will be viewed as over-reacting by the majority of the people who see them. Unless someone can refute the claims that a) extremists might be trying to recruit veterans and b) that some veterans actually are prone to that recruitment, then the DHS report remains a valid, even-handed one.
Further, though ill-considered, Smith's comments are reasonable on the surface. Given the amount of time he had to react to events -- this was a first or near-first report on the situation as details were coming in -- he drew a reasonable conclusion. Subsequent reporting significantly diminished -- to the point of absence -- any mention of Von Brunn's military service. It clearly isn't relevant to his actions, and FOX and others ultimately reported that way.
All that said, I and others probably should be more sympathetic to veterans and active military personnel. We train you to find and kill our enemies, we ask you to perform peace-keeping tasks that you aren't always properly trained or equipped for, we ask you to be away from your families in harm's way for ungodly stretches of time, we barely compensate you, and then when you come home, your government betrays almost every promise it has made to you and you're expected to just "be normal" again.
No one who hasn't stood the post can fully understand what it is like -- the endless waiting followed by intense periods of unpredictable chaos, the seemingly impossible demands to perform miracles with insufficient resources, the constant fear, the dehumanizing violence, the sight of your friends being blown to bits around you, the psychological effects of taking another human being's life, the impossible requirement that you use just enough force on just the right people when they aren't wearing uniforms or on an official field of battle, and the myriad other stresses of the job.
To go through all of that and more and then find yourselves criticized could make almost anyone over-react. And on both sides of the issue, that's really the point, isn't it?
To go through all of that and more and then find yourselves criticized could make almost anyone over-react. And on both sides of the issue, that's really the point, isn't it?
David, perhaps that is the real issue, though I suspect that you and I see what underlies that issue differently.
What troubles me the most about how things like the DHS report and Smith's comments come into being is that the presume things about the modern US military that are not true. There is an ongoing perception among certain segments of the population, from my point of view, that the majority of the people who join the military do so because they come from difficult economic circumstances and have few, if any other options. The attitudes that go along with that perception are tragic--that the average military member is uneducated, uninformed, unaware, and easily swayed by the beliefs of others.
In my own military experience, I discovered nothing of the sort. I worked with members from all services and from all walks of life, and I discovered that the average military member looks a lot more like the average American than many people allow. In fact, the technological, all-volunteer fighting force that our military is today means that it has attracted an entirely different kind of person than it has in its entire history, even comparing it with the military that existed during Desert Storm.
It may be that people see the reactions of military members and supporters as overreaction in this case, but I believe that this overreaction is the result of ongoing, pent-up frustration over the fact that the nature of the military and its actions continues to be generally mischaracterized on a variety of fronts. I think what is so bothersome about this mischaracterization for me any many veterans and supporters is that the evidence to the contrary is so frequently ignored.
And, frankly, there is a trend in the US right now to believe that the military is the cause of some things that are wrong, when the military is really just another tool at the government's disposal that is as neutral as diplomacy or intelligence until it is deployed. Certainly, bad things have happened in military operations, but I believe that these things are historically no worse than bad things that have been done with diplomacy or intelligence.
At the end of all of this, I think what veterans and supporters of the military want is the same benefit of the doubt given to other groups engaged in difficult, but ultimately meaningful, activities on behalf of the US and its citizens. I doubt any government report would single out, as an example, college employees as being at risk for recruitment by extremist organizations, so why single out veterans that way?
Simply put, I think that the verbiage of the DHS report where this chapter of the issue got started could have simply stopped by stating that extremist groups are trying to recruit among veterans. That statement would have been fair and would have put everyone--including veterans--on guard against such a threat. Instead, the report took things a step further and created the reaction that it got.
"There is an ongoing perception . . . that the majority of the people who join the military do so because they come from difficult economic circumstances . . . that the average military member is uneducated, uninformed, unaware, and easily swayed by the beliefs of others."
I know I have had the perception that most people in the military come from poor economic conditions. You shared some eye-opening information with me about that, and it is still hard to put aside that belief. Believing that people in the military come from poor backgrounds has also lead me to believe that they are largely un- or under-educated, etc., but I've never equated that with being easily swayed by the beliefs of others. In fact, I'd say it is quite the opposite: Far from being easily swayed, they are often quite dogmatic about their beliefs even in the face of otherwise compelling evidence and reason.
Now before that comment makes anyone too angry, let me say that I've recently encountered research that suggests that all people are likely to believe that what they believe is correct, even in the face of counter-evidence. One truly has to work at being open-minded, and even then, it is a difficult process. I think that much is clear even from our debates here.
"I believe that this overreaction is the result of ongoing, pent-up frustration over the fact that the nature of the military and its actions continues to be generally mischaracterized on a variety of fronts . . . [while] evidence to the contrary is so frequently ignored."
I can see how that would lead to some of the conclusions you have drawn. In some ways, that's why I have been trying to convince you not to take it so hard. I have no doubt that you hear negative reactions, but I do think you overestimate the depth and breadth of that mindset. I'm saying that as someone who shares at least some of the mindset you are speaking of.
It's fitting that you should defend your honor and that of other service people. However, you shouldn't turn a blind eye to the very real existence of "bad actors" among military ranks. Perhaps you'll decry this as from a liberal source and evidence of exactly what you're saying, but this article points to some of the real threats that exist within the military:
What is telling, though, is that no attempt is made, whatsoever, to suggest that these people are representative of military personnel. To the contrary, it is clear here, as well as within the DHS report, that the threat is from a minority that had a pre-existing belief set and that might, because they haven't been treated squarely by their government etc., be tempted to act more extremely.
It is just factually true that military training is attractive to extremist groups. It is so much so, that people who are already extremists join the military to acquire that training. To suggest, as some commentators have, that all military people should be beyond reproach and that warnings such as are contained in the DHS report shouldn't be heard is ridiculous.
"I doubt any government report would single out, as an example, college employees as being at risk for recruitment by extremist organizations, so why single out veterans that way?"
I think a report would single out college employees if there was sufficient evidence to suggest that it might be a compelling factor in extremist or potentially extremist activity. See, this is what I don't understand. How can you not see that military training would be attractive to people who seek to act in a violent fashion? The kinds of extremists we're talking about believe that there is a revolution coming and many of them believe it is their duty to start it. If you were going to build an army would you want soldiers or would you want bursars?
"Simply put, I think that the verbiage of the DHS report where this chapter of the issue got started could have simply stopped by stating that extremist groups are trying to recruit among veterans."
See, that seems even worse to me. That WOULD be a slap at all veterans. It also implies that what really bothers you is not so much the veteran angle, but the listing of a set of beliefs that you share. That is consistent with your post, but again, I think you were overreacting. The DHS report was not trying to criminalize those beliefs. It was rightly pointing out that some who hold those beliefs have been moved to extreme action. They did the same thing with leftist organizations that hold beliefs about environmental issues. I care about the environment, but I don't feel accused or belittled by the DHS report about environmental extremists because I'm not one.
Feel how you want to feel. I got into this discussion to have some fun with you. Now, I really just wish it didn't bother you so much because I think you don't need to be feeling so bad about it and, despite our differences, I'm really don't like the idea of you feeling bad.
Post a Comment