Replies

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that you are in any way involved with deception. I’m saying they hire the people to do the legitimate thing but leave the determinations of exactly WHO is a terrorist to the Southern Poverty Law Center. There is nothing illegitimate about what you’re doing; the problem is that they are leaving the determination of who is a likely terrorist up to the SPLC, which is a political hack group. Doing that lets them point to people like you, who are doing the right things, and say that the military as a whole is doing the right stuff. It’s just the SPLC (which they gave approval to as a source for determining who is likely terrorist...) who is screwing up. But the military will keep SPLC as the expert that the people in the field are supposed to refer to and they will keep using your material alongside the SPLC labels for who is terrorist and get the same result over and over again. The problem is that they are NOT making lists of their own; they are farming that out to a leftist political hack group, in order to give themselves plausible deniability.

I did not intend to cast any aspersions on what you are doing. It’s not your fault that they are using you as proof of their integrity while leaving the decisions of who is a terrorist to a hack political group - effectively passing the buck for those sheerly political determinations because they are outsourced to political hacks. They’re having you do the right stuff on their right hand, but on the left hand they are telling people to get their list of terrorists from SPLC, knowing that SPLC is calling Tea Party and AFA terrorists. The military can say “In our training materials we never said these people are terrorists!” And that’s true; they have NO list of terrorists. But they told their people to look to SPLC’s terrorist list to find out who is a terrorist. So when the military advisors on the ground look at your curriculum and see that they need to counsel people against fraternizing with terrorists (for instance) and then they look at the recommended/military-endorsed SPLC website saying that Tea Party is terrorist, they end up telling people not to fraternize with Tea Party - based not on what the military explicitly told them, nor on what you put in the curriculum, but based on their approval of SPLC on the list of experts who can identify terrorist-leaning groups.

And when that happens they will say that these instructors got the info off of websites. Well, duh. SPLC’s terrorist list is probably on a website - a website that the military APPROVED for the purpose of finding out who is a terrorist.

See how the CYA works? It gives plausible deniability, when in fact the military is responsible for what the soldiers are being told even though they have a good, solid curriculum - because they APPROVED SPLC as experts in determining who is a terrorist.

I apologize for any hurt feelings I may have caused you by not making it clear that what you do is legitimate even though the military itself is using it as CYA for the real problem: their approval of the political hack organization, SPLC, as experts in identifying terrorist-leaning groups.

IIRC, there was at least one shooting that was sparked by the SPLC’s rhetoric against conservative groups. It may even have been the AFA office that was targeted, because SPLC had declared them to be terrorists because AFA believes that marriage is between one one man and one woman (like a large portion of the American public believes). Why the military trusts a group that is fomenting terrorism is beyond me, and the military needs to answer for that, IMHO.