Army briefing "Americans are threat"

[Michelle]

Interesting in what way?

I found it sort of a dry read, myself.

Maybe this one will entertain you more...

http://www.activistp...s-that-are.html

The point is, the government has greatly expanded the parameters of what a "threat" is. It's become so obscure almost anyone fits in the category.

[RaptorBites]

i.m not. no reason to read the rest, all i see a wall of blah blah.

kent state, wacko, ruby ridge. tell me all i need to know.

It isn't a "wall of blah blah", he addresses each and every statement you made.

You simply disregard it because of personal ignorance, or maybe because you already have it in your mindset that you are right, regardless if you are possibly wrong.

[Agent0range]

Aquatus1, you make some very good points in response to my opinions. I hope you are right. But I would like to clarify a couple things. If I'm confused about the difference between the National Guard and the Military and other entities such as the ATF it is because the government from which they originate seems to be confused about their roles and training also. During the Iraq war, weren't many NG or Reserve units suddenly called to active duty and sent into combat? As an experienced military person you no doubt have a more detailed understanding of the differences between one division or another but to an average citizen like myself they all look the same. I think it's safe to say that no one being fired upon at Kent State or Waco was relieved because it was not the Army that was shooting at them.

Secondly, the sense of dread that I detect as an undercurrent in the national conversation might be due to the sites I frequent if I frequented certain sites. But I see it everywhere that I happen to stumble upon. I can be reading the comments on something five links from where I started on a site I've never heard of and there it is, a sense of fear about the government that I've never seen before. I came of age during the Viet Nam war when distrust of the government ran high and protests were common. But I do not recall the sense of fear of our own government among all age groups that I see now. Nixon only taped his own calls. Even here, on UM, where topics like ghosts and aliens and bigfoot are the norm we are talking about fear of the government. Never mind bigfoot, it is Big Brother we are most frightened of. Now that's scary.

Yes, many National Guard and Reserve units did deploy. MOST of the time they do not deploy in a combat role, but mostly as support. It is very very rare, even for national guard and reserve infantry batallions to have their own area of operations in which they are responsible for. Quite simply, they don't get the training they need to handle the task. I was active duty in combat arms for 8 years. When you are stateside, you are in the field for a couple weeks at a time at least every other month training. As deployments come closer, training becomes more frequent and more intense, culminating with a trip to NTC or JRTC for a monthlong deployment simulation. You are prepared for any and all scenarios. When I got out, I did a year in the reserves, and it was a completely different world. We didn't train at all. You have your little 2 week thing once a year, but the main focus on that is mandatory training and weapons qualification. In all honesty, the reserves is a joke, which is why I got out permanently. National Guard do even less training, as they are controlled by the state.

There is just a huge difference between living it everyday, and going to hang out for one weekend a month...

[aztek]

or maybe because you already have it in your mindset that you are right, regardless if you are possibly wrong.

that sure seems to be your mindset.

[Babe Ruth]

Aquatus1, you make some very good points in response to my opinions. I hope you are right. But I would like to clarify a couple things. If I'm confused about the difference between the National Guard and the Military and other entities such as the ATF it is because the government from which they originate seems to be confused about their roles and training also. During the Iraq war, weren't many NG or Reserve units suddenly called to active duty and sent into combat? As an experienced military person you no doubt have a more detailed understanding of the differences between one division or another but to an average citizen like myself they all look the same. I think it's safe to say that no one being fired upon at Kent State or Waco was relieved because it was not the Army that was shooting at them.

Secondly, the sense of dread that I detect as an undercurrent in the national conversation might be due to the sites I frequent if I frequented certain sites. But I see it everywhere that I happen to stumble upon. I can be reading the comments on something five links from where I started on a site I've never heard of and there it is, a sense of fear about the government that I've never seen before. I came of age during the Viet Nam war when distrust of the government ran high and protests were common. But I do not recall the sense of fear of our own government among all age groups that I see now. Nixon only taped his own calls. Even here, on UM, where topics like ghosts and aliens and bigfoot are the norm we are talking about fear of the government. Never mind bigfoot, it is Big Brother we are most frightened of. Now that's scary.

Perhaps it is the end result of decades long lying by the government? Maybe the internet? More and more people are beginning to understand how common government deception is.

[aquatus1]

lmao. whatever dude.

so you know better what i mean than me myself??

i don't see any more reasons to talk to you. peace out.

not even gonna bother reading the rest.

I don't suppose you consider this an emotional response either?

I am reminded of that one line from a movie: "If irony were strawberries, we'd all be drinking smoothies."

[aquatus1]

Aquatus1, you make some very good points in response to my opinions. I hope you are right. But I would like to clarify a couple things. If I'm confused about the difference between the National Guard and the Military and other entities such as the ATF it is because the government from which they originate seems to be confused about their roles and training also.

Really?

It isn't from a personal decision to, consciously or subconsciously, lump them all together under one "Government Shoot-Bang Team" category?

During the Iraq war, weren't many NG or Reserve units suddenly called to active duty and sent into combat? As an experienced military person you no doubt have a more detailed understanding of the differences between one division or another but to an average citizen like myself they all look the same.

Ahh...look...I fully admire the people in the Reserves and the National Guard. I myself spent some time in the Navy Reserves between wars. It's just that...again it is a simple matter of time spent training. You live like you train. If the vast majority of your time is spent living like a civilian, then your value to the military is...well, no offense or anything, because it is really an essential role in today's modern military, but most of your value is in monitoring a non-combat or back-of-the-line position, freeing up full-time military personnel for the more combat or near-combat positions.

I think it's safe to say that no one being fired upon at Kent State or Waco was relieved because it was not the Army that was shooting at them.

I agree. Then again, no one in the military is particularly thrilled at being lumped together with the Guardsmen that fired at Kent State either.

Secondly, the sense of dread that I detect as an undercurrent in the national conversation might be due to the sites I frequent if I frequented certain sites. But I see it everywhere that I happen to stumble upon. I can be reading the comments on something five links from where I started on a site I've never heard of and there it is, a sense of fear about the government that I've never seen before. I came of age during the Viet Nam war when distrust of the government ran high and protests were common. But I do not recall the sense of fear of our own government among all age groups that I see now. Nixon only taped his own calls. Even here, on UM, where topics like ghosts and aliens and bigfoot are the norm we are talking about fear of the government. Never mind bigfoot, it is Big Brother we are most frightened of. Now that's scary.

There is a reason why organizations regularly cycle personnel out of roles that require particular mindsets. The human brain likes patterns. Heck it absolutely adores them. To the extent that it even tries, on the occasion that there is a particular pattern that has been used most recently more heavily than normal, to interpret new data with that possibly irrelevant pattern. This is a biological behaviour of the brain; this is a heuristic that everyone on the planet is exposed to at all levels. Some people remember the popularity of the video game Tetris, and their secret shame that they couldn't look at a tiled surface without seeing Tetris patterns falling into shape. Most of us have heard the cliches about martial artists, or sportsmen, or avid hobbyist, or anyone who spends inordinate amounts of time on a particular behaviour, begins to get all philosophical and describe how life is like a reflection of their chosen behaviour (cliches are cliches for a reason). The same is most definitely true about such stressful topics such as spywork, politics, and yes, even conspiracy topics (sorry guys, but in our own way, we are just as crazy as them).

It's always useful, at times, to just step away from a given arena, and let your brain air out. I myself only recently came back from a one-year sabbatical from Unexplained-Mysteries, and I can contrast my attitude now with that of how I was prior to leaving, when I would spend literally hours a day responding to posts, and getting further and further depressed at the state of today's youth. After one get's a bit of perspective, one realizes how much the things that worry us in our daily lives are often...not quite as important as we tell ourselves they are.

[aquatus1]

Maybe this one will entertain you more...

http://www.activistp...s-that-are.html

The point is, the government has greatly expanded the parameters of what a "threat" is. It's become so obscure almost anyone fits in the category.

Entertaining yes. Particularly worrisome, no. The trick is to be able to maintain an objective appreciation between the claim being made and the evidence being provided to support the claim.

In this case, where you have concluded that government has greatly expanded the definition of "threat", I would have to ask...isn't creating a formal training guide the exact opposite of that? In other words, prior to this, people could and did apply the word "threat" all willy and/or nilly, but now they have specific limits and definitions they must adhere to in order to make their case. They can't just refer to something as a threat without having someone call them on it. That first link you presented goes to a training manual that specifically described what an extremist violation is, and when and where the term can be applied. That's kind of a big deal to know. It's really something you want on hand if you just arrested a guy, or are dealing with a hostile workplace environment and are having trouble deciding what your next step should be in regards to the processing of the matter. Is it racism? Is it Hate Speech? Is it someone suffering from a sudden, but temporary case of ass? How you deal with it depends in large part on your level of knowledge. Training manuals that describe how things are viewed from a professional and legal perspective are invaluable sources of knowledge.

Also, bear in mind the manner the evidence is presented and the technique used to persuade an unsuspecting person into following along carelessly. Take the second link you provided, where they provide link after link of worrisome claim after claim after claim. It's enough to send them all your money for survival supplies and hide out in your basement till you have to go all Red Dawn over the Russians, or Arabs, or Chinese, or whomever the current boogyman is! But when yu look past the alarm, you find...well, fairly common sense situations.

Take the first link in the article:

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.

Sounds horrible, doesn't it? Why, it's like they decided to stop treating real terrorists like terrorist and are getting ready to round up all of us justice-seeking, God-loving, patriotic citizens as terrorists! But then, again, we take a step back and look at things in perspective:

Okay, in the training manuals, we are no longer equating Islam to terror.

Well...isn't that a good thing? Isn't the whole point that we are trying to keep the government from just casting the label of terrorist just broadly over entire swaths of society? Isn't this the government actually pulling back and restraining itself?

Why would this be a cause for concern for any other group? Does the government have a quota of people it must refer to as "terrorists" in order to keep the rights to continue using the term? Is the government no longer referring to all followers of a particular belief system as terrorist an indication that it is going to start referring to any followers of other belief systems as terrorists, even though that is exactly the opposite of what it just did?

Right? Wrong? Not really the point. The point is that one can't blindly listen and follow along with the claims these sorts of sites make. You have to be willing to look at the information objectively, without political or ideological slant, prior to deciding whether a given argument merits attention. One of the oldest tricks in the persuasion handbook (I am an executive instructor in marketing and negotiation) is getting your audience to mindlessly listen and agree to a series of seemingly harmless statements, and then hammering them with a main topic that would feel a bit too unbelievable had it been presented with no prior setup.

[aquatus1]

Perhaps it is the end result of decades long lying by the government? Maybe the internet? More and more people are beginning to understand how common government deception is.

That's entirely possible. I really have a difficult time understanding people who are shocked at some of the "scandals" that come out. Then again, I have been aware of such things operate for quite some time, so I suppose I am a little jaded. It is a little difficult to get alarmed at a particular claim that the government is stacking the deck in its favor when you are fully aware that this is precisely what governments do and have done throughout the entire existence of human kind, and which has never really resulted in the sort of dystopian horror story you hear as the inevitable consequence of it.

[aquatus1]

i.m not. no reason to read the rest, all i see a wall of blah blah.

kent state, wacko, ruby ridge. tell me all i need to know.

Remember the part a few pages back about denialists being the ones who refuse to even acknowledge (not "agree with", just "acknowledge") new information? The mistakes made when one chooses one position a priori and then judges information as being correct or incorrect based on whether it agrees with the original chosen position?

If you are so convinced you know all you need to know, to the point where you refuse to even discuss the matter...chances are pretty good you are a denialist.

[Michelle]

Entertaining yes. Particularly worrisome, no. The trick is to be able to maintain an objective appreciation between the claim being made and the evidence being provided to support the claim.

In this case, where you have concluded that government has greatly expanded the definition of "threat", I would have to ask...isn't creating a formal training guide the exact opposite of that? In other words, prior to this, people could and did apply the word "threat" all willy and/or nilly, but now they have specific limits and definitions they must adhere to in order to make their case. They can't just refer to something as a threat without having someone call them on it. That first link you presented goes to a training manual that specifically described what an extremist violation is, and when and where the term can be applied. That's kind of a big deal to know. It's really something you want on hand if you just arrested a guy, or are dealing with a hostile workplace environment

You make me feel so guilty...I make a little blurb and you put so much thought into a totally logical answer. I don't disagree with you at all. It was just one of those irritating bits of information that get stuck in the back of my brain and resurfaces now and again. I do find it a little worrisome how people are always being labeled and pigeonholed into one group or the other. People tend to be more multifaceted and less linear.

It's good to see you back!

[Big Jim]

Aquatus1, you wrote:

Really?

It isn't from a personal decision to, consciously or subconsciously, lump them all together under one "Government Shoot-Bang Team" category?

Answer: No.

[darkmoonlady]

***cough-Timothy McVeigh-cough*** Come on seriously after Sandy Hook, after all the mass shootings, you think the governmental agencies that prevent domestic terrorism should just turn a blind eye to crazies because they're American. Listen Fox is disingenuous in the same way that Alex Jones is, you cannot stir up people to whipped, creamy foams of paranoia then turn around and blast "the Gub'ment" for trying to make sure these nutters don't get their hands on weapons and explosives. I find it hugely ironic that those flag waving "patriots" who happily and gleefully said the Patriot act (and it's subsequent additions) was what we needed to keep us all safe, are the same people decrying the loss of freedom and the NSA snooping. You got what you wanted, and yet for that very reason in getting what you want, you not only want to complain about it but you're ticked off that some of those who agree with you are willing to do dangerous things to "get their point accross" and are under the watchful eye of domestic terrorism experts. You can't have your freedom cake and your patriot ice cream mix now can you?

[Michelle]

***cough-Timothy McVeigh-cough*** Come on seriously after Sandy Hook, after all the mass shootings, you think the governmental agencies that prevent domestic terrorism should just turn a blind eye to crazies because they're American. Listen Fox is disingenuous in the same way that Alex Jones is, you cannot stir up people to whipped, creamy foams of paranoia then turn around and blast "the Gub'ment" for trying to make sure these nutters don't get their hands on weapons and explosives. I find it hugely ironic that those flag waving "patriots" who happily and gleefully said the Patriot act (and it's subsequent additions) was what we needed to keep us all safe, are the same people decrying the loss of freedom and the NSA snooping. You got what you wanted, and yet for that very reason in getting what you want, you not only want to complain about it but you're ticked off that some of those who agree with you are willing to do dangerous things to "get their point accross" and are under the watchful eye of domestic terrorism experts. You can't have your freedom cake and your patriot ice cream mix now can you?

Since when did they become one in the same? Do you have any stats on that? I can tell you most of the "flag waving patriots" I know could see the writing on the wall with the Patriot Act and they didn't like it at all.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Michelle

[darkmoonlady]

If you are to believe the Fox nation then yes they are one in the same people, (for the most part). They put down people as unpatriotic for decrying the Patriot act because it was keeping us "safe" from terrorism and funding Homeland Security. The local municipalities got funding for fighting terrorism. Now that there are more domestic threats it seems in mass shootings than foreign terrorism all of the sudden now that all is something Tea Party patriots don't want to swallow. They shout from the rooftops about the injustice of it all, the profiling, the eye on citizens etc. At the same time Fox, the Tea Party and Alex Jones whip people up about how government is infringing on their rights, that they're coming for your children, that you should arm yourself. Do they not see the blatant connection there? If you feed people's paranoia there are going to be those who take it to crazytown and become domestic terrorists. When they start shooting up little kids, people in theaters etc, they are certainly not being helped by those factions decrying fear of the government.

[Yamato]

Once upon a time, support for the Patriot Act was almost universal. Now other than rhetoric, how are these new Tea Party candidates voting on Patriot Act/NDAA/NSA/TSA and so forth? How'd the Tea Partiers vote on Libya? On Syria? We've had enough issues come up in recent years to determine accurately whether these politicians are Fox News or not.

[Beany]

Why does it seem Judicial watch seem like a scam?

According to Wikipedia, it's a politically conservative group that moves its agenda forward by litigation, aimed mostly at Democrats. If I were looking for a non-biased source, Judicial Watch would not be it.

And there are plenty of politicians, elected or hopefuls, that are or have called for an armed revolution. Google Newsweek's article about Nevada candidate Sharron Angle. And this from the website, Opposing Views: in Virginia, the Greene County Republican Committee sent out a newsletter that reportedly calls for an armed revolution if President Obama is re-elected this November.

I would hope our country would have some defenses in place against these nut jobs who would cheerfully destroy our country because they lost a political battle. Go out and google "politicians who are calling for an armed revolution", or a similar phrase. You'll be amazed at what you find.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Beany

[Yamato]

Statists are the perfect victims to boil to death in the cauldron. Everything's fine!

Americans, borne of armed revolution, and mortally terrified of revisiting that from whence they came.

It's a joke!

It's nuts!

It's, it's, it's, the Tea Party?

The difference is, when the British controlled our money supply, the consequences were far more acute and timely. Not enough money, people get a clue. Too much money, they fall asleep. Now the exact same enemy, the exact same reason to revolt, is far more subtle, untouchable, dangerous and costly. If a bit less English. We're too blind in denial to come to terms with the fact that it's happening again.

"Are you kidding me? I can't afford to pay for that!" was the more intelligent and honest approach. The theory of evolution never mentioned that the process often goes in reverse. A bunch of privileged self entitled people sitting around not paying their bills wondering what the problem is. Inflation is a cruel and untouchable authority over the minds of our new slave class.

[Mr.United_Nations]

According to Wikipedia, it's a politically conservative group that moves its agenda forward by litigation, aimed mostly at Democrats. If I were looking for a non-biased source, Judicial Watch would not be it.

And there are plenty of politicians, elected or hopefuls, that are or have called for an armed revolution. Google Newsweek's article about Nevada candidate Sharron Angle. And this from the website, Opposing Views: in Virginia, the Greene County Republican Committee sent out a newsletter that reportedly calls for an armed revolution if President Obama is re-elected this November.

I would hope our country would have some defenses in place against these nut jobs who would cheerfully destroy our country because they lost a political battle. Go out and google "politicians who are calling for an armed revolution", or a similar phrase. You'll be amazed at what you find.

If Mitt Romney was president, The war with Iran would be on, Israel would gets its way and ww3 would happen.

[aztek]

If Mitt Romney was president, The war with Iran would be on, Israel would gets its way and ww3 would happen.

and big foot would show himself and give interviews.

[Kowalski]

Statists are the perfect victims to boil to death in the cauldron. Everything's fine!

Americans, borne of armed revolution, and mortally terrified of revisiting that from whence they came.

It's a joke!

It's nuts!

It's, it's, it's, the Tea Party?

The difference is, when the British controlled our money supply, the consequences were far more acute and timely. Not enough money, people get a clue. Too much money, they fall asleep. Now the exact same enemy, the exact same reason to revolt, is far more subtle, untouchable, dangerous and costly. If a bit less English. We're too blind in denial to come to terms with the fact that it's happening again.

"Are you kidding me? I can't afford to pay for that!" was the more intelligent and honest approach. The theory of evolution never mentioned that the process often goes in reverse. A bunch of privileged self entitled people sitting around not paying their bills wondering what the problem is. Inflation is a cruel and untouchable authority over the minds of our new slave class.

Being a rebel is in my blood....My family fought in the War for Independence, the Texas Revolution, and the Second War of Secession, which is the more correct term to use, historically speaking, for the Civil War. I don't understand how people can be so apathetic regarding liberty... Does a slave, who doesn't know he's a slave, really a slave? YES!

"This nation was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the principle - among others - that honest men may honestly disagree; that if they all say what they think, a majority of the people will be able to distinguish truth from error. "

"This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave."

"This republic was not established by cowards; and cowards will not preserve it."

--Elmer Davis

Edited November 1, 2013 by Kowalski

[Yamato]

Are....are they armed? Do...do they have guns? OMG.... they have GUNS?!

Okay guns...guns....guns. Where did I put my flowchart....oh yes, here it is: Are they from the government and here to help?

NO?!!?!!??

That's it! That's it!!!!! They're all crazy! We're getting out of this house right now and going back to England where we belong! Before these nutjobs ruin the colonies!

[ninjadude]

Being a rebel is in my blood....My family fought in the War for Independence, the Texas Revolution, and the Second War of Secession, which is the more correct term to use, historically speaking, for the Civil War.

Being an AMERICAN is in my blood. My family fought in the Revolutionary War and for the UNITED STATES in the Civil War against traitorous rebels.

[Thanato]

Being an AMERICAN is in my blood. My family fought in the Revolutionary War and for the UNITED STATES in the Civil War against traitorous rebels.

My family fought in the Colonial Rebelion against the King as well. Also during the American War of Aggression against British North America.

[Kowalski]

Being an AMERICAN is in my blood. My family fought in the Revolutionary War and for the UNITED STATES in the Civil War against traitorous rebels.

I'm sorry if you took some offense to my post, it was not intended. My husband is a Yankee, and a lot of his family fought on the Union side of the War, and I completely respect that. They were tough men. And yes, we are all Americans. Which is why, me and my husband will be donating some money to our local food bank, because food stamps is going to cut people a few dollars this month, and it's Thanksgiving. Because, we are all in this together.