re: #198 Charles

Yes, you’re reading it wrong. No, it does not paint conservatives in general as right wing extremists.

Good Afternoon, Sir. (And fellow Lizards.)

I have actually read both reports in the last half-hour or so. (10 min. to read them after 20 min. wrestling with Firefox’s inability to handle their .pdf format rationally). What I got from them are the following points;

The “Right-Wing” Report;

1. Definitely does not paint all veterans as potential extremists. It simply states that the present combination of wartime conditions, economic hardship, and sharp philosophical divisions in society at large make it more likely that extremist groups will attempt to recruit some military personnel, and that there may in fact be some who would be receptive.

2. It points out that fear of increased anti-gun legislation has led to “hoarding” of firearms and ammunition, by both extremists as well as law-abiding citizens (italics an exact quote). It draws a sharp distinction between the two, and goes on to state that the Heller decision has “reaffirmed” the basic philosophy of the Second Amendment, while leaving room for debate about how firearms may be regulated without violating the letter or spirit of same.

3. It points out that the “right-wing” groups that DHS is concerned about are generally not only anti-government, but often anti-Semitic as well. Interestingly, it makes no mention of the very real possibility of such groups making common cause with Islamist terrorist groups who share their antipathy toward both the u.s. government and Jews. IMPO, this would be one of those “matches made in hell” to pay particular attention to, like the Black Panthers rapprochemont’ with the PLO in the early 70s (see The Terror Network by Claire Sterling).

4. It concludes that the recruitment of such disaffected veterans as it describes by such groups would increase the danger the groups pose to society. To me, this is rather like saying that rain is wet; anytime people with proper training join an extremist group, that group tends to become more effective in a force-projection sense, and thus harder to combat.

The “Left-Wing” Report;

States that “cyber-attacks” by such groups as Earth First!, ALF, etc., are more likely than more overtly-violent “real-world” actions because;

1. They are perceived (by the groups) as “non-violent” actions, in keeping with their (supposed) philosophy of “do no harm”;

2. In an increasingly computer-dominated world, such attacks have the potential to do much greater economic damage than any sort of terrorist-type “direct action”. I.e., a DDS attack on the NYSE’s computers can cost the entire nation’s business establishment billions in a few minutes, a much more damaging “strike” than, say, blowing up a stockbroker’s office on Main Street.

3. The other attraction of such Net-based “warfare” is that the “activists” can do it from the comfort of home (or Mom’s basement, which amounts to the same thing). It just takes less effort than actually going out and planting a bomb.

IMPO, the “right-wing” report is fairly accurate in terms of threat assessment. The “left-wing” report, however, overlooks the number of elements on that axis which yearn for not merely “striking a blow against capitalism”, but the destruction of civilization as a whole. For some, on both sides of the spectrum, nothing less than TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) will suffice to assuage their desires for power and destruction. Assuming that those on the “left” are somehow immune to the siren call of “cleansing violence”, as practiced in the past by extremists on both sides, is (again IMPO) very unwise.

That’s really all I can think of to say on this subject.

/Awaiting incoming brickbats with interest

cheers

eon