Avatar feed
Responses: 2
SFC Casey O'Mally
0
0
0
Not really what the report said, but leave it to Vice.

The report used a lot of key qualifiers, like APPEARS. The report also acknowledged that they had woefully inadequate data. They also based part of their finding on interviews with DoD leaders and their OPINIONS - which is why they caveated most of their fins8ngs as inconclusive.

And they used data from START as the basis for their "growing extremism" conclusion. But START is a left-wing think tank that calls things like non-violently blocking access to abortion clinics "violent extremism," which skews data. It also calls having anti-government views extremist. By which point pretty much everyone on RP is extremist because I have seen ALL Y'ALL call out at least one governor or Congressperson or President for doing something they felt was wrong. All of you are a bunch of anti-government EXTREMISTS.

And thus we have a "veteran extremist problem."

I *always* look at 2 main things - methodology and definitions. In this case part of their methodology was to analyze data from START. So then we have to look at START methodology and definitions. And there we find the problem.

Am I saying there are not violent extremists who are veterans? Absolutely not. But we do not have accurate, unbiased data to truly define the problem. Despite what Vice is trying to tell you.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO3 Shayne Seibert
0
0
0
They had to label us as something, so that when it's time to stop their tyranny they have a "valid" reason to have us ostracized. We free thinking veterans who have the capability to wage war are a threat to their beta male "role model" who can't figure out which bathroom to use.

Won't matter anyway, if it comes to that point they are so completely screwed anyway.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close