Replies

Just the typical out-of-control rage and arrogance that passes for conservatism these days.

If you'll read the report in context, you'll see it's talking about recruitment of military veterans by already established extremist organizations, which has actually happened. If you are a combat veteran, you know full well a small but definite percentage of them come back with psychological maladjustments (for obvious reason) that can make them susceptible to, or easy prey for, any number of unfortunate things. The government is not targeting church-going veterans.

MOS? Get a life. As I recall it was 11B for job and 4 for rank, but that's not exactly a treasured part of this draftee's memory. Wounded twice doing what infantry do, even lost two fingers for good. RINO stuff, I know. A real conservative surely would have lost a limb, or at least one major organ.

Now who's being hysterical? Someone disagrees with you and now you're crying "woe is me, people are accusing me of not losing enough limbs!" When the heck did that ever come up? Get a grip on yourself.

If you'll read the report in context, you'll see it's talking about recruitment of military veterans by already established extremist organizations, which has actually happened...The government is not targeting church-going veterans.

There are a lot of different kinds of people who have been recruited into various outlaw organizations. For instance, police officers have probably been recruited here and there. Why, then, no mention of watching out for rogue police officers? I'll tell you why - because they don't consider police officers to be a susceptible enough group to recruitment by "right wing extremists" to warrant any particular mention. Their inclusion of veterans as a group is precisely because they believe veterans to be a higher risk group than say, police officers, firefighters, teachers, nuns, etc. Their specification of this group implies that this group would be more susceptible both in number and attitude to recruitment than every group of people not mentioned.

In fact, the government's special publication of a profile of "right wing extremists" implies that the government see more danger in the right wing than, say, the left wing. If the government saw them as equal threats, we'd be looking at two documents: one would be "right wing extremists" and the other would be "left wing extremists". However, since we only have the one, we have to conclude that this government does not consider left wing extremists to be nearly the threat that right wingers are, and when it breaks down the composition of "right wing" and who might be susceptible to "right wing extremism", it singles out veterans as one of the primary groups, above all other groups.

Now, anyone who has done basic logic, where A=B and B=C therefore A=C, will then understand that the government is implying that veterans are more of a threat than rabid environmentalists, La Raza, and other assorted commies.

By the way, your military record sounds impressive. What division were you assigned to?