Posted on Jun 10, 2023
Do you believe that "Radicalized Military Vets" are a true threat to the Nation?
69.9K
1.07K
445
122
122
0
So, this is from the Daily Beast, and it infers that military veterans must be monitored. It brings up "the present and historical ties between American hate groups and armed servicemen and women....".
My own belief is that, because Veterans, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and mothers disagreeing with school boards tend to not vote the way that the staff of the Daily Beast would like, then they should be rounded up like the Gypsies and Jews in Germany in 1939 (too much of a threat to the New Order).
It seems that this article would classify George Washington as a "Radicalized Military Vet".
So, how do you see it?
Here is the full article:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/against-all-enemies-review-the-chilling-threat-of-radicalized-military-vets
My own belief is that, because Veterans, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and mothers disagreeing with school boards tend to not vote the way that the staff of the Daily Beast would like, then they should be rounded up like the Gypsies and Jews in Germany in 1939 (too much of a threat to the New Order).
It seems that this article would classify George Washington as a "Radicalized Military Vet".
So, how do you see it?
Here is the full article:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/against-all-enemies-review-the-chilling-threat-of-radicalized-military-vets
Terrorism
Surveillance
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 167
5
5
0
The Daily Beast is equivalent to the National Enquirer, they put stories like this out to sensationalize and scare the uninformed. The scariest right-wing radicals are those who “almost joined”… :)
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Good quesiton that deserves serious input!
I believe the issue does merit SOME concern; but to label Veterans, Christions or any conservatives as potentially dangerous, is (almost) literally insanity. In fact, it's the opposite side of the issue that concerns me ... as you note, it's as if the Daily Beast simply categorizes all, "Veterans, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and mothers disagreeing with school boards," as ready for the roundup to the concenrtration camps.
The rants about conservatives of any ilk, are all hysterics and exaggeration. That's partly because many of us (Vets) tend to say that the Oaths we took against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, scares the crap out of those who really do want to rule U.S. citizens. That's not to say there aren't some deviant Veterans, no more or less so than any other segment of the population. Besides, not all veterans are actually well trained, with only Basic being their experience with weapons of any sort.
I guess it's the new verson of Vietnam Vets all being drug addicts, psycho baby killers and such. Sad and harmful to not just Vets, but the country overall.
I believe the issue does merit SOME concern; but to label Veterans, Christions or any conservatives as potentially dangerous, is (almost) literally insanity. In fact, it's the opposite side of the issue that concerns me ... as you note, it's as if the Daily Beast simply categorizes all, "Veterans, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and mothers disagreeing with school boards," as ready for the roundup to the concenrtration camps.
The rants about conservatives of any ilk, are all hysterics and exaggeration. That's partly because many of us (Vets) tend to say that the Oaths we took against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, scares the crap out of those who really do want to rule U.S. citizens. That's not to say there aren't some deviant Veterans, no more or less so than any other segment of the population. Besides, not all veterans are actually well trained, with only Basic being their experience with weapons of any sort.
I guess it's the new verson of Vietnam Vets all being drug addicts, psycho baby killers and such. Sad and harmful to not just Vets, but the country overall.
(5)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
SFC Bernard Walko - Indeed, psychos and sexual deviants, or at best, Flag Officers who, "go along to get along," to avoid being relieved.
WARNING - this got long-winded.
I was at the National American Legion Convention last week in Charlotte, NC. There was a panel there of all the branches comprised of each branch's senior enlisted. The topic was quality of life in the military.
I wanted SO BAD to pose a question in response to their concerns over enlistments and retention. Obviously, to me at least, it would have put them on the spot to either be honest and risk their remaining careers, or to force them to lie. The Army rep was a SGM however, representing the CSM of the Army. After the panel, the stayed around for photos and some chats. I asked the Army SGM if we could step aside, explaining I didn't want to post a question to the panel that could cause them problems as previously stated.
He SEEMED to be sincere; but he stated that, "The Army units I've seen, have not issues with Trans or gays. I told him the military was far better off when DADT was the rule - so long as no gays openly admitted their preferences, no one bothered them, even though we pretty much knew who was or was not gay. NO ONE CARED if they kept their lives PRIVATE.
I explained to him how my son was exposed to a gay's complaint that he made a negative comment about them. As BN SDNCO he had to make rounds of the billets. He went into a common area where a bunch of Artillery guys were. As is common, his Infantry MOS and the Arty guys busted one another's' chops, a lot. HE walked in and said, "Why does it smell like there are a bunch of gays in here?" From the reaction, (facial expressions) he knew something was amiss. A soldier stepped out of his room and said, "That's because 'I" am gay, Staff Sergeant!" My son apologized and said he was just busting chops. End of case?
Not so much. The next time he was SDNCO a few nights later, a Captain began to BS with him, very casually. Asked about Mike's deployments - 1 year in Iraq and two separate years in Afghanistan. He asked the names of some of Mike's officers and Sr. NCO's ... sounding like he was looking for guys they both knew. Though Mike thought it odd that another Company Commander would be what he saw as informality, he didn't think much about it.
Mike was pulling SDNCO 3 times a week - contrary to how the DA6 was supposed to ensure rotation; but Mike was a "wounded warrior," dealing with the Med Board, etc, and that week or two, his company was at Ft. Irwin on training. So, the NEXT time he was SDNCO, the officer stopped by again. [Sorry this is long-winded.]
The Captain then told Mike he had spoken to some of his leaders he served with in both Iraq and Afghanistan ... Plt Leaders, one or two CO's and two of his SGM's. He told Mike something about how they all said he was a great soldier and NCO. THEN, the Captain revealed why he'd visited.
Mike had already heard that a PSG, a 1LT and his 1SG were resigning, or retiring in the case of the NCO's who had enough time. Why? The Captain explained what was going on - this was right after the lifted any DADT policies and said gays could openly serve. They suddenly saw themselves as a "minority class." with NCO's they did not like, or who tried to get them to DO THEIR DUTY, one of them would file an IG Complaint which is exactly what that soldier from Mike's rounds did.
The Captain explained the unwritten, but FIRM policy. First complaint ... off-the record counseling by one's CO. (Mike's CO, fortunately, was at Ft. Irwin!) He told Mike- that a second complaint would be formal, written counselling. A third complaint would result in a BDE CDR's letter, identifying the subject NCO as a "Toxic Leader," thereby rendering him/her as NON-promotable! Hence, the earlier retirements and resignations.
Mike had no further issues ... he was careful after that, but rarely had to contact guys not in his unit. By the way, I said it was fortunate that his own CO was at Ft. Irwin ... that's because, in his Company, "wounded warriors" were treated like SCUM! Extra duty in spite of the DA6; forced PT despite medical profiles that ended with Mike being taken by ambulance to the post hospital, twice! Single NCO's at that time had no on-post housing and resided off post. They ORDERED him to drive back and forth, despite being on narcotic meds! Finally, he refused to do so and his CO and 1SG filed Malingering charges! His last year in his beloved Army was horrible waiting to be Med Boarded out. Him and one other "wounded warrior" were both treated like that.
So yes, there ARE psychos in key positions. Oh, about the charges of Malingering? Mike took his medical records with him to CID, and gave his Army doctor's name to the Agent. The doctor is a full bird Colonel. When the Agent reviewed his medical fie and profiles, and spoke to the Colonel MD, he called Mike's CO and conferenced with the 1SG. He told them, VERY FIRMLY, to withdraw their charges ... "or face some serious consequences." He then apologized to Mike and said no further action would be taken.
I know this got long ... but the issue in today's military and the gay/trans issues, have far reaching morale issues. My apoliies for dragging this out - I just had surgery and pain pills are terrible though they do give some relief.
I did tell the SGM that if they wanted to improve retentions and enlistments, the brass best look at their extreme liberal policies! I couldn't tell if he agreed or not ... his one disturbing comment was he was unaware of any such things as Mike and others at Ft. Lewis experienced.
WARNING - this got long-winded.
I was at the National American Legion Convention last week in Charlotte, NC. There was a panel there of all the branches comprised of each branch's senior enlisted. The topic was quality of life in the military.
I wanted SO BAD to pose a question in response to their concerns over enlistments and retention. Obviously, to me at least, it would have put them on the spot to either be honest and risk their remaining careers, or to force them to lie. The Army rep was a SGM however, representing the CSM of the Army. After the panel, the stayed around for photos and some chats. I asked the Army SGM if we could step aside, explaining I didn't want to post a question to the panel that could cause them problems as previously stated.
He SEEMED to be sincere; but he stated that, "The Army units I've seen, have not issues with Trans or gays. I told him the military was far better off when DADT was the rule - so long as no gays openly admitted their preferences, no one bothered them, even though we pretty much knew who was or was not gay. NO ONE CARED if they kept their lives PRIVATE.
I explained to him how my son was exposed to a gay's complaint that he made a negative comment about them. As BN SDNCO he had to make rounds of the billets. He went into a common area where a bunch of Artillery guys were. As is common, his Infantry MOS and the Arty guys busted one another's' chops, a lot. HE walked in and said, "Why does it smell like there are a bunch of gays in here?" From the reaction, (facial expressions) he knew something was amiss. A soldier stepped out of his room and said, "That's because 'I" am gay, Staff Sergeant!" My son apologized and said he was just busting chops. End of case?
Not so much. The next time he was SDNCO a few nights later, a Captain began to BS with him, very casually. Asked about Mike's deployments - 1 year in Iraq and two separate years in Afghanistan. He asked the names of some of Mike's officers and Sr. NCO's ... sounding like he was looking for guys they both knew. Though Mike thought it odd that another Company Commander would be what he saw as informality, he didn't think much about it.
Mike was pulling SDNCO 3 times a week - contrary to how the DA6 was supposed to ensure rotation; but Mike was a "wounded warrior," dealing with the Med Board, etc, and that week or two, his company was at Ft. Irwin on training. So, the NEXT time he was SDNCO, the officer stopped by again. [Sorry this is long-winded.]
The Captain then told Mike he had spoken to some of his leaders he served with in both Iraq and Afghanistan ... Plt Leaders, one or two CO's and two of his SGM's. He told Mike something about how they all said he was a great soldier and NCO. THEN, the Captain revealed why he'd visited.
Mike had already heard that a PSG, a 1LT and his 1SG were resigning, or retiring in the case of the NCO's who had enough time. Why? The Captain explained what was going on - this was right after the lifted any DADT policies and said gays could openly serve. They suddenly saw themselves as a "minority class." with NCO's they did not like, or who tried to get them to DO THEIR DUTY, one of them would file an IG Complaint which is exactly what that soldier from Mike's rounds did.
The Captain explained the unwritten, but FIRM policy. First complaint ... off-the record counseling by one's CO. (Mike's CO, fortunately, was at Ft. Irwin!) He told Mike- that a second complaint would be formal, written counselling. A third complaint would result in a BDE CDR's letter, identifying the subject NCO as a "Toxic Leader," thereby rendering him/her as NON-promotable! Hence, the earlier retirements and resignations.
Mike had no further issues ... he was careful after that, but rarely had to contact guys not in his unit. By the way, I said it was fortunate that his own CO was at Ft. Irwin ... that's because, in his Company, "wounded warriors" were treated like SCUM! Extra duty in spite of the DA6; forced PT despite medical profiles that ended with Mike being taken by ambulance to the post hospital, twice! Single NCO's at that time had no on-post housing and resided off post. They ORDERED him to drive back and forth, despite being on narcotic meds! Finally, he refused to do so and his CO and 1SG filed Malingering charges! His last year in his beloved Army was horrible waiting to be Med Boarded out. Him and one other "wounded warrior" were both treated like that.
So yes, there ARE psychos in key positions. Oh, about the charges of Malingering? Mike took his medical records with him to CID, and gave his Army doctor's name to the Agent. The doctor is a full bird Colonel. When the Agent reviewed his medical fie and profiles, and spoke to the Colonel MD, he called Mike's CO and conferenced with the 1SG. He told them, VERY FIRMLY, to withdraw their charges ... "or face some serious consequences." He then apologized to Mike and said no further action would be taken.
I know this got long ... but the issue in today's military and the gay/trans issues, have far reaching morale issues. My apoliies for dragging this out - I just had surgery and pain pills are terrible though they do give some relief.
I did tell the SGM that if they wanted to improve retentions and enlistments, the brass best look at their extreme liberal policies! I couldn't tell if he agreed or not ... his one disturbing comment was he was unaware of any such things as Mike and others at Ft. Lewis experienced.
(1)
(0)
MSG Lonnie Averkamp
SSG Bill McCoy, your analysis is Right-on. As Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the Soviet Secret Police under Joseph Stalin said, "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime". In other words, if the State designates anyone as threat or an enemy, the State can twist the laws to put that "anyone" away.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
No, only woke and lefty are threats to democracy. Libs in uniform are traitors.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
This is just another way by extremists to try and divide our country. Put the fear into people and repeat it over and over and they will believe it.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I think that this is more fear driven than anything. There is nothing that the left fears than veterans who know strategy and weapons that they can't control. What does the left do to people that are dangerous and can't be controlled? Call them radicals.
It's all about language and how weak the left has become. They control the language. They control what defines that language. And above all, they fear what they can't control.
It's all about language and how weak the left has become. They control the language. They control what defines that language. And above all, they fear what they can't control.
(4)
(0)
MSG Lonnie Averkamp
Wow! I don't think that I have heard anyone sum it up as succinctly as you just did.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
Anyone that has seen the newly released video's of what actually took place now should understand that there was no insurrection/riote. It was a peaceful demonstration until the police, without provocation, started assaulting the demonstrators with tear gas and paint balls. We also know, as demonstrated in the video's, that demonstrators were not just let into the build by police they were guided in by them. We also know that the only person that was killed during the 9/11 demonstration was a former 7 year unarmed female veteran. The shooting was unprovoked and the officer that shot her in cold blood has yet to be properly charged and prosecuted.
So what does this article amount to? It's nothing more than propaganda!
So what does this article amount to? It's nothing more than propaganda!
(4)
(0)
SPC Kent Laughlin
the children, the hos on the view, the morons on cnn and the other media manure spreading operations have so successfully indoctrinated them along with the weak of mind that they will not watch those videos nor will they seek out information that might come from other sources.. some, however, are watching those leftists from Australia and commenting "this must be true Hazel it is from a foreign country" they have leftist idiots in greater numbers than we do..
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google