Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Team Legacy

Rightwing Extremist and Rightwing Terrorists

Recommended Posts

So I guess I'm in the "WTF are you smoking Janet" crowd. To those of my fellow citizens on both sides of the aisle, keep voicing your dissent when you feel your representation fails you. It is part of what keeps our nation fairly balanced and moving too far into either fringe. Your ability to assemble and peacefully air your opinions helps make our nation better. A heck of a lot better than one where you fear being seized in the night for example.

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[oh and my personal favorite...

from page 4 - "These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

Yep.. those violent church goers these days.. better watch out for them...

The KKK are church goers...
The National Director is a pastor with a Ph.D. in Theology. Also, atheists aren't blowing up abortion clinics or taking out doctors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am an Extremist - Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt. Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read.

...

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans," the report alleges: "Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers, or Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaida operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

...

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Edited by MasterofOrion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am an Extremist - Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt. Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read.

...

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans," the report alleges: "Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers, or Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaida operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

...

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

I'm not about to claim North is an extremist or terrorist, but what does the bolded have to with him not being either? Haven't many on the right framed extremism as having a connection to other religions? What is the point he is trying to make here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am an Extremist - Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt. Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read.

No, Ollie. None of those things you listed makes you an "extremist" as the DHS defined it.

Now what makes you an "extremist" in my eyes is your willful illegal conduct in the Iran-Contra scandal, followed by your perjury in testifying in front of Congress.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers, or Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaida operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

Ah, now your earlier illegal conduct is at least partially explained. Perhaps you engaged in criminal conduct because your reading comprehension sucks. From 'Somali terrorists' on you list foreign terrorism threats. Or are you instead saying that the DHS was sitting on its ### and doing nothing during the Bush years? If "right wing extremists" are currently the biggest domestic terrorist threat, shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that we've made so much progress in the war on terror?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am an Extremist - Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt. Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read.

...

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans," the report alleges: "Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers, or Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaida operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

...

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

I'm not about to claim North is an extremist or terrorist, but what does the bolded have to with him not being either? Haven't many on the right framed extremism as having a connection to other religions? What is the point he is trying to make here?
The article is saying:

The terrorist definition looks like his political opposition rather than describing real terrorist;

The report mitigates the real danger which is Muslim extremist;

Timothy McVeigh was given as the typical example of a returning veteran rather than an extreme exception;

It also makes every day Joes coming back from Iraq sound like future terrorist;

It also sounds like an effort to either criminalize or marginalize his political opposition using the law. It goes so far as calling them potential terrorist: It looks like an abuse of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am an Extremist - Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt. Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read.

...

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans," the report alleges: "Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers, or Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaida operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

...

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

I'm not about to claim North is an extremist or terrorist, but what does the bolded have to with him not being either? Haven't many on the right framed extremism as having a connection to other religions? What is the point he is trying to make here?
The article is saying:

The terrorist definition looks like his political opposition rather than describing real terrorist;

The report mitigates the real danger which is Muslim extremist;

Timothy McVeigh was given as the typical example of a returning veteran rather than an extreme exception;

It also makes every day Joes coming back from Iraq sound like future terrorist;

It also sounds like an effort to either criminalize or marginalize his political opposition using the law. It goes so far as calling them potential terrorist: It looks like an abuse of power.

Are you getting this from the report, or Ollie's interpretation of it? The former would not be inaccurate, the later merely questionable. Edited by Neofight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am an Extremist - Oliver North

According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt. Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read.

...

Under the heading "Disgruntled Military Veterans," the report alleges: "Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists -- including lone wolves or small terrorist cells -- to carry out violence." These unsubstantiated claims are followed by reminders that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was a military veteran. Omitted is any reference to the fact that McVeigh was simply one of more than 40 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

Thirteen lines after this egregious, unconscionable slander against those of us who are military combat veterans, DHS makes the stunning charge that "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

According to this DHS "Assessment," the most dangerous threat we face here at home isn't from radical imams preaching violence in U.S. mosques and madrassas, Islamists recruiting in our prisons, Somali terrorists enticing young immigrants to become suicide bombers, or Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaida operatives plotting mass murder. No, according to DHS, the real threat comes from what our government labels "rightwing extremist ideology."

...

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

I'm not about to claim North is an extremist or terrorist, but what does the bolded have to with him not being either? Haven't many on the right framed extremism as having a connection to other religions? What is the point he is trying to make here?
The article is saying:

The terrorist definition looks like his political opposition rather than describing real terrorist;

The report mitigates the real danger which is Muslim extremist;

Timothy McVeigh was given as the typical example of a returning veteran rather than an extreme exception;

It also makes every day Joes coming back from Iraq sound like future terrorist;

It also sounds like an effort to either criminalize or marginalize his political opposition using the law. It goes so far as calling them potential terrorist: It looks like an abuse of power.

And the other DHS report detailing the potential threats from "leftwing extremists", what is that saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I love how conservatives have their panties in a wad and you didn't hear a thing from Liberals. Says a lot about the movement and where it is.

Which groups were identified as leftwing extremist? I get where the upset from the right is coming from in this document.
Update?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I love how conservatives have their panties in a wad and you didn't hear a thing from Liberals. Says a lot about the movement and where it is.

Which groups were identified as leftwing extremist? I get where the upset from the right is coming from in this document.
Update?
The DHS report on "left wing extremism" described "Anarchist extremists [who] embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements."

"Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable."

"Their no-harm doctrine includes claiming to ensure the safety of humans, animals, and the environment even as they attack businesses and associated operations."

"Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks — all of which extremists regard as nonviolent — to bombings and arson."

So basically what Rush and his ilk describe all democrats as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I love how conservatives have their panties in a wad and you didn't hear a thing from Liberals. Says a lot about the movement and where it is.

Which groups were identified as leftwing extremist? I get where the upset from the right is coming from in this document.
Update?
The DHS report on "left wing extremism" described "Anarchist extremists [who] embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements."

"Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable."

"Their no-harm doctrine includes claiming to ensure the safety of humans, animals, and the environment even as they attack businesses and associated operations."

"Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks — all of which extremists regard as nonviolent — to bombings and arson."

So basically what Rush and his ilk describe all democrats as.

So DHS thinks Bill Ayers is a terrorist too.

Oh and the anticapitalist, antiglobalization rhetoric from mainstream libs has picked up quite a bit lately. Looks like Rush is onto something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So DHS thinks Bill Ayers is a potential terrorist too.

Oh and the anticapitalist, antiglobalization rhetoric from mainstream libs has picked up quite a bit lately. Looks like Rush is onto something.

Corrected.

Within all of these groups (both leftwing and rightwing) are a small "radical" percentage who want or will take action against the government.

Don't you agree? And if so, isn't it the DHS responsibility to guard against that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.

Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.

Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

Of course not. They're already trying to assure each other that von Brunns is a lefty. Edited by pantagrapher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.

Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

Of course not. They're already trying to assure each other that von Brunns is a lefty.
:lmao:

You are talking about 2 murders in 2 months. Why not post every article for ALL the murders that have taken place the past 2 months in this country so we can all try and disect how each of the murderers leaned politically? Wont that be fun. :lmao:

Edited by Brutis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

First, I doubt there is any connection between the two acts, other than you consider them both "right wing."As I know from bitter experience, when it comes to anti-Semitism, there is as much hatred from the Left as from the Right. Have you heard Reverend Wright's most recent comments? He can't talk to Obama because the President's "Jew handlers" won't let him.Extremism is the villain here, Barry Goldwater's famous comments not withstanding. Extremism is possible from the Left or Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.

Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

Of course not. They're already trying to assure each other that von Brunns is a lefty.
:lmao:

You are talking about 2 murders in 2 months. Why not post every article for ALL the murders that have taken place the past 2 months in this country so we can all try and disect how each of the murderers leaned politically? Wont that be fun. :lmao:

Whoosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.

Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

First, I doubt there is any connection between the two acts, other than you consider them both "right wing."

As I know from bitter experience, when it comes to anti-Semitism, there is as much hatred from the Left as from the Right. Have you heard Reverend Wright's most recent comments? He can't talk to Obama because the President's "Jew handlers" won't let him.

Extremism is the villain here, Barry Goldwater's famous comments not withstanding. Extremism is possible from the Left or Right.

:lmao:

But for some reason, conservatives as a whole took it personally that right-wing extremist groups were identified by DHS as a possible breeding ground for domestic terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.

Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

Of course not. They're already trying to assure each other that von Brunns is a lefty.
:lmao: I wasn't sure I could laugh harder than I did at the image of Rush et al bursting capillaries in their zeal to distance their beloved party from this guy...

:lmao:

You are talking about 2 murders in 2 months. Why not post every article for ALL the murders that have taken place the past 2 months in this country so we can all try and disect how each of the murderers leaned politically? Wont that be fun. :lmao:

...but I was wrong. :lmao: :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

I'd count three with the Holocaust Museum guy, the abortion doctor killer, and the Pittsburgh 'Obama's gonna take my guns away' cop killer.Plus there were a few folks picked up for plots of assassinating Obama.Yeah, these are rightwing extremists/terrorists, and are exactly the kind of people the DHS was talking about. Not the Tea Partiers or Ollie North.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months later, and two right wing terrorist acts later, it appears that the DHS report was on point.Any of those laughing two months ago care to offer a retraction?

First, I doubt there is any connection between the two acts, other than you consider them both "right wing."As I know from bitter experience, when it comes to anti-Semitism, there is as much hatred from the Left as from the Right. Have you heard Reverend Wright's most recent comments? He can't talk to Obama because the President's "Jew handlers" won't let him.Extremism is the villain here, Barry Goldwater's famous comments not withstanding. Extremism is possible from the Left or Right.
This seems like a fairly round about way to say what the original DHS memo's were ridiculed for saying, Tim. TGZ's point is that there was much truth to what the naysayers mocked. Equivocation and false equivalence aside, most see these as precisely the kind of right wing extremism that was predicted due to the current economic, political and societal circumstances.And there has been and will be more from the left as well. The left just isn't as enthusiastic about killing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i find most amusing about this clip is the take of the MSNBC guy vs. that of the FoxNews guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brown Scare of '09

Jesse Walker | June 11, 2009

Greg Sargent's reaction to the murder at the Holocaust Museum yesterday -- "it's time to revisit criticism of 'right-wing extremists' report" -- wasn't atypical. You could hear the same insta-reaction around the Web, as confirmation bias did its work and two or three crimes by far-right figures were transformed into something larger. Here's Andrew Sullivan: "That DHS report doesn't look so iffy any more, does it?" Markos Moulitsas: "Attempt by Cons to justify their critique of prescient DHS report are an extra special dose of stupid." Benjamin Sarlin at The Daily Beast writes that "a much-maligned Department of Homeland Security memo on right-wing extremism is looking more accurate by the day." Doug J. at Balloon Juice says, "How many acts of right-wing terrorism have to occur before DHS is allowed to start keeping track of it?"

So the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated and dysfunctional agency that shouldn't exist in the first place, should spend its time tracking the possibility that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard? From preventing another 9/11 to preventing unorganized shootings: Talk about mission creep. Yes, these murders are terrorism, but they're the sort of terrorism that can be contained by the average small-town police force. If you try to blow them up into a grand pattern that threatens ordinary Americans, you're no different from the C-level conservative pundits who treat every politically motivated crime by a Muslim as evidence of a broad Islamic threat to ordinary Americans' well-being. (The reliably inane Debbie Schlussel even blames Islam for the Holocaust Museum shooting, despite the fact that the killer is a neo-Nazi, on the grounds that "it is because of Muslims--who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels--that neo-Nazis feel comfortable--far more comfortable!--manifesting their views about Jews.")

Why did the DHS report come under such fire? It wasn't because far-right cranks are incapable of committing crimes. It's because the paper blew the threat of right-wing terror out of proportion, just as the Clinton administration did in the '90s; because it treated "extremism" itself as a potential threat, while offering a definition of extremist so broad it seemed it include anyone who opposed abortion or immigration or excessive federal power; and because it fretted about the danger of "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities." (Note that neither the killing in Kansas last month nor the shooting in Washington yesterday was committed by an Iraq or Afghanistan vet.) The effect isn't to make right-wing terror attacks less likely. It's to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right, just as the most substantial effect of a red scare was to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the left. The fact that communist spies really existed didn't justify Joseph McCarthy's antics, and the fact that armed extremists really exist doesn't justify the Department of Homeland Security's report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

:lmao: Instead of just casually dismissing this piece because the guy has a problem with DHS, care to refute his points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

:lmao: Instead of just casually dismissing this piece because the guy has a problem with DHS, care to refute his points?
Well, for one thing he focuses on the DHS report on the rightwing extremists without acknowledging the similar DHS report on the leftwing extremists. Secondly, he talks about these recent acts of terrorism being in the realm of small town police forces when the memo was in fact a release to local law enforcement. The author just seems to be reiterating the same talking points we heard months ago from right wing pundits about how they were the ones being targeted by this report when in fact these recent incidents have just highlighted the types of activity that actually was being predicted and targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

:lmao: Instead of just casually dismissing this piece because the guy has a problem with DHS, care to refute his points?
Not really. It's simply an opinion piece - Walker isn't bringing any facts to the table to dispute the DHS report. He claims that the DHS report "blew the threat out of proportion". How can I refute that? It's a matter of opinion, and frankly, after 3 terrorist attacks from these extremist groups in 3 months, I think he's wrong.He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.And I disagree that the report was created to "make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right". Earlier in this thread, scooby pointed out that much/most of this report was generated 4 years ago, when the Bush administration was in office. Are we to believe that DHS created a report for Bush administration to use to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right?Seems that Walker is a small gov't libertarian, and is probably against expansion of federal oversight into these matters. He's entitled to his opinion, but I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brown Scare of '09

Jesse Walker | June 11, 2009

Greg Sargent's reaction to the murder at the Holocaust Museum yesterday -- "it's time to revisit criticism of 'right-wing extremists' report" -- wasn't atypical. You could hear the same insta-reaction around the Web, as confirmation bias did its work and two or three crimes by far-right figures were transformed into something larger. Here's Andrew Sullivan: "That DHS report doesn't look so iffy any more, does it?" Markos Moulitsas: "Attempt by Cons to justify their critique of prescient DHS report are an extra special dose of stupid." Benjamin Sarlin at The Daily Beast writes that "a much-maligned Department of Homeland Security memo on right-wing extremism is looking more accurate by the day." Doug J. at Balloon Juice says, "How many acts of right-wing terrorism have to occur before DHS is allowed to start keeping track of it?"

So the Department of Homeland Security, a bloated and dysfunctional agency that shouldn't exist in the first place, should spend its time tracking the possibility that a criminal kook with no co-conspirators will decide to shoot a doctor or a security guard? From preventing another 9/11 to preventing unorganized shootings: Talk about mission creep. Yes, these murders are terrorism, but they're the sort of terrorism that can be contained by the average small-town police force. If you try to blow them up into a grand pattern that threatens ordinary Americans, you're no different from the C-level conservative pundits who treat every politically motivated crime by a Muslim as evidence of a broad Islamic threat to ordinary Americans' well-being. (The reliably inane Debbie Schlussel even blames Islam for the Holocaust Museum shooting, despite the fact that the killer is a neo-Nazi, on the grounds that "it is because of Muslims--who are the biggest contributor to the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism to Holocaust-eve levels--that neo-Nazis feel comfortable--far more comfortable!--manifesting their views about Jews.")

Why did the DHS report come under such fire? It wasn't because far-right cranks are incapable of committing crimes. It's because the paper blew the threat of right-wing terror out of proportion, just as the Clinton administration did in the '90s; because it treated "extremism" itself as a potential threat, while offering a definition of extremist so broad it seemed it include anyone who opposed abortion or immigration or excessive federal power; and because it fretted about the danger of "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities." (Note that neither the killing in Kansas last month nor the shooting in Washington yesterday was committed by an Iraq or Afghanistan vet.) The effect isn't to make right-wing terror attacks less likely. It's to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right, just as the most substantial effect of a red scare was to make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the left. The fact that communist spies really existed didn't justify Joseph McCarthy's antics, and the fact that armed extremists really exist doesn't justify the Department of Homeland Security's report.

Interesting blurb. But it reads like a rather long necked fellow with a tenuous grasp of cause and effect wrote this. Is DHS bloated? Absolutely. Should it not exist or never have been created in the first place? If I had my druthers. But to ignore the obvious signs of what is going on in this country, with priests openly praying for the death of the leader of the nation, to loose lipped talking heads inciting hatred, to the actual threats, plots and assassinations themselves would be a tremendous leap of faith. Not to mention that our servicemen and women are having a tough time coming to grips in their return to our society; only they are turning their violent acts on themselves (good JAMA article on this as well, if you have access). Why no mention of this by the author?

Needless to say, I am dubious of his claim that these issues can be dealt with by local authorities. How are they going to stop this when the Feds can't, particularly without at least some form of advance warning from the Federal authorities? Something like, say a memo. Commissioned by the outgoing Bush admin (mea culpa?) for both the left and the right.

Edited by Neofight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

:lmao: Instead of just casually dismissing this piece because the guy has a problem with DHS, care to refute his points?
Well, for one thing he focuses on the DHS report on the rightwing extremists without acknowledging the similar DHS report on the leftwing extremists. Secondly, he talks about these recent acts of terrorism being in the realm of small town police forces when the memo was in fact a release to local law enforcement. The author just seems to be reiterating the same talking points we heard months ago from right wing pundits about how they were the ones being targeted by this report when in fact these recent incidents have just highlighted the types of activity that actually was being predicted and targeted.
I would agree with you if this guy was a right-winger, but he isn't. He made good points about how vilifying extremism is done by both sides. I took issue with the report because it pretty much labeled any small government/libertarian person as being a threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

:lmao: Instead of just casually dismissing this piece because the guy has a problem with DHS, care to refute his points?
Not really. It's simply an opinion piece - Walker isn't bringing any facts to the table to dispute the DHS report. He claims that the DHS report "blew the threat out of proportion". How can I refute that? It's a matter of opinion, and frankly, after 3 terrorist attacks from these extremist groups in 3 months, I think he's wrong.He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.And I disagree that the report was created to "make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right". Earlier in this thread, scooby pointed out that much/most of this report was generated 4 years ago, when the Bush administration was in office. Are we to believe that DHS created a report for Bush administration to use to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right?Seems that Walker is a small gov't libertarian, and is probably against expansion of federal oversight into these matters. He's entitled to his opinion, but I disagree.
Thanks. Great explanation. I can see where you are coming from now and you pretty much answered why I support his opinion in your last statement. I'm also very much small government. I think DHS is bloated beyond belief. I believe that criminal activity within the U.S. should be handled solely by local/state law enforcement and the FBI. So I think we can just agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

:lmao: Instead of just casually dismissing this piece because the guy has a problem with DHS, care to refute his points?
Not really. It's simply an opinion piece - Walker isn't bringing any facts to the table to dispute the DHS report. He claims that the DHS report "blew the threat out of proportion". How can I refute that? It's a matter of opinion, and frankly, after 3 terrorist attacks from these extremist groups in 3 months, I think he's wrong.He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.And I disagree that the report was created to "make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right". Earlier in this thread, scooby pointed out that much/most of this report was generated 4 years ago, when the Bush administration was in office. Are we to believe that DHS created a report for Bush administration to use to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right?Seems that Walker is a small gov't libertarian, and is probably against expansion of federal oversight into these matters. He's entitled to his opinion, but I disagree.
Thanks. Great explanation. I can see where you are coming from now and you pretty much answered why I support his opinion in your last statement. I'm also very much small government. I think DHS is bloated beyond belief. I believe that criminal activity within the U.S. should be handled solely by local/state law enforcement and the FBI. So I think we can just agree to disagree.
You won't see me arguing that DHS isn't bloated and inefficient. I don't know much about the actual size, funding, and staffing of DHS, but it could very well be too large, especially since it was created in knee jerk fashion.But I'm also not convinced that we're not better off monitoring these extremist groups instead of simply reacting. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took issue with the report because it pretty much labeled any small government/libertarian person as being a threat.

No, it didn't."Some right-wing extremist groups are antigovernment" and "All antigovernment groups are right-wing extremists" are not equivalent statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect for Mr Walker, but I don't put much credence in his piece since he seems to have an extremely low opinion of DHS anyway. He raises some valid points, but it's apparent that he's not giving DHS any benefit of the doubt here, and instead views the DHS report in the most negative way possible.

:lmao: Instead of just casually dismissing this piece because the guy has a problem with DHS, care to refute his points?
Not really. It's simply an opinion piece - Walker isn't bringing any facts to the table to dispute the DHS report. He claims that the DHS report "blew the threat out of proportion". How can I refute that? It's a matter of opinion, and frankly, after 3 terrorist attacks from these extremist groups in 3 months, I think he's wrong.He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.And I disagree that the report was created to "make it easier to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right". Earlier in this thread, scooby pointed out that much/most of this report was generated 4 years ago, when the Bush administration was in office. Are we to believe that DHS created a report for Bush administration to use to smear nonviolent, noncriminal figures on the right?Seems that Walker is a small gov't libertarian, and is probably against expansion of federal oversight into these matters. He's entitled to his opinion, but I disagree.
Thanks. Great explanation. I can see where you are coming from now and you pretty much answered why I support his opinion in your last statement. I'm also very much small government. I think DHS is bloated beyond belief. I believe that criminal activity within the U.S. should be handled solely by local/state law enforcement and the FBI. So I think we can just agree to disagree.
You won't see me arguing that DHS isn't bloated and inefficient. I don't know much about the actual size, funding, and staffing of DHS, but it could very well be too large, especially since it was created in knee jerk fashion.But I'm also not convinced that we're not better off monitoring these extremist groups instead of simply reacting. :lmao:
Agreed, but shouldn't that be the FBI's responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took issue with the report because it pretty much labeled any small government/libertarian person as being a threat.

No, it didn't."Some right-wing extremist groups are antigovernment" and "All antigovernment groups are right-wing extremists" are not equivalent statements.
Right. Again, this is the same simplistic overreaction that many pundits were fuming about months ago. Most amusing were the ones that saw some insidious liberal motives behind the report that was commissioned by Bush and had a counterpart detailing the threat from left-wing extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but shouldn't that be the FBI's responsibility?

Sure. Perhaps expansion of the FBI is a better idea than the creation of DHS. I could be sold on that. As someone who thinks we overracted in a number of areas post 9/11, I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but shouldn't that be the FBI's responsibility?

Sure. Perhaps expansion of the FBI is a better idea than the creation of DHS. I could be sold on that. As someone who thinks we overracted in a number of areas post 9/11, I'm all ears.
I'd definitely agree. The impediments to communication between the FBI and CIA that were part of the reason of our failure to prevent 9/11 were the result of bureaucracy. Adding in a whole new agency just adds another layer of bureaucracy.However, using a time when this agency got something right as an opportunity to make this point seems kind of counter productive. Although this wasn't really the central point of that op-ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this line of thinking (connecting these dots between these events) is that it tends to result in an attempt to marginalize all opposition from the right. It becomes a "You better not criticize Obama, because some wacko might hear it and do something crazy, and then the fault will partly be with your criticism!" This is already happening; it's an attempt to stifle free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this line of thinking (connecting these dots between these events) is that it tends to result in an attempt to marginalize all opposition from the right. It becomes a "You better not criticize Obama, because some wacko might hear it and do something crazy, and then the fault will partly be with your criticism!" This is already happening; it's an attempt to stifle free speech.

Not really. No one is stifling free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but shouldn't that be the FBI's responsibility?

Sure. Perhaps expansion of the FBI is a better idea than the creation of DHS. I could be sold on that. As someone who thinks we overracted in a number of areas post 9/11, I'm all ears.
I'd definitely agree. The impediments to communication between the FBI and CIA that were part of the reason of our failure to prevent 9/11 were the result of bureaucracy. Adding in a whole new agency just adds another layer of bureaucracy.

However, using a time when this agency got something right as an opportunity to make this point seems kind of counter productive. Although this wasn't really the central point of that op-ed.

But the report didn't get anything right -- at least not anything controversial. Yeah, right-wingers can do terrorist acts: we already knew that, and nobody complained that the report said so.

The complaint about the report was that it labeled as "rightwing extremists" "those who are antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority," which includes, like, tens of thousands of tea-party attendees.

Moreover, the terrorist acts that occurred were done by rogue individuals, acting alone, that the DHS report did not -- and could not have -- done anything to stop. Read the full DHS report here. It says nothing remotely helpful to any law enforcement that would have tried to prevent the recent events.

So the DHS report, the controversial part of it, is absolutely not vindicated by the fact that, yes, there are right-wing terrorists out there after all. That was never in doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.

It's not like the DHS report prevented those human lives from being lost, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but shouldn't that be the FBI's responsibility?

Sure. Perhaps expansion of the FBI is a better idea than the creation of DHS. I could be sold on that. As someone who thinks we overracted in a number of areas post 9/11, I'm all ears.
I'd definitely agree. The impediments to communication between the FBI and CIA that were part of the reason of our failure to prevent 9/11 were the result of bureaucracy. Adding in a whole new agency just adds another layer of bureaucracy.

However, using a time when this agency got something right as an opportunity to make this point seems kind of counter productive. Although this wasn't really the central point of that op-ed.

But the report didn't get anything right -- at least not anything controversial. Yeah, right-wingers can do terrorist acts: we already knew that, and nobody complained that the report said so.

The complaint about the report was that it labeled as "rightwing extremists" "those who are antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority," which includes, like, tens of thousands of tea-party attendees.

Moreover, the terrorist acts that occurred were done by rogue individuals, acting alone, that the DHS report did not -- and could not have -- done anything to stop. Read the full DHS report here. It says nothing remotely helpful to any law enforcement that would have tried to prevent the recent events.

So the DHS report, the controversial part of it, is absolutely not vindicated by the fact that, yes, there are right-wing terrorists out there after all. That was never in doubt.

Did the report really say that all people with these types of beliefs are extremist? Because I just read it, and I must have missed that part. I know that many people have interpreted it that way, but I simply don't think that's correct. I haven't read the left wing extremist report, but apparently it also used broad terms, one post here summarized it as mentioning people with anti-capitalist and socialist beliefs. I don't remember a furor over that report, probably because folks realized that it was restricted to violent actors with those beliefs, in other words, actual extremists.

My point is that we have these recent real life examples of exactly the type of people that the report was talking about, (there is even a subsection highlighting the particular threat from and difficulty of dealing with 'lone wolf' type actors) and it is clearly not the Teapartiers. And it does seem like these incidents are increasing, which was mentioned in the report as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.

It's not like the DHS report prevented those human lives from being lost, either.
True. Richard Clarke's memo also didn't prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Is that an indictment on the reports, or the action (or lack thereof) based on the reports? Is it logical to point out reports that accurately predict future events and suggest that they were wasteful and shouldn't be generated thereafter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this line of thinking (connecting these dots between these events) is that it tends to result in an attempt to marginalize all opposition from the right. It becomes a "You better not criticize Obama, because some wacko might hear it and do something crazy, and then the fault will partly be with your criticism!" This is already happening; it's an attempt to stifle free speech.

By whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.

It's not like the DHS report prevented those human lives from being lost, either.
True. Richard Clarke's memo also didn't prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Is that an indictment on the reports, or the action (or lack thereof) based on the reports? Is it logical to point out reports that accurately predict future events and suggest that they were wasteful and shouldn't be generated thereafter?
It's not an indictment of the DHS report. That report wasn't meant to prevent attacks like this.Which is why these attacks aren't a vindication of the report, and don't show its usefulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.

It's not like the DHS report prevented those human lives from being lost, either.
True. Richard Clarke's memo also didn't prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Is that an indictment on the reports, or the action (or lack thereof) based on the reports? Is it logical to point out reports that accurately predict future events and suggest that they were wasteful and shouldn't be generated thereafter?
It's not an indictment of the DHS report. That report wasn't meant to prevent attacks like this.Which is why these attacks aren't a vindication of the report, and don't show its usefulness.
What was the intention of the report writers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He claims these threats shouldn't be taken seriously b/c they're the type of threats local law enforcement can handle. I'd argue that local law enforcement wasn't able to handle these 3 attacks in a manner that prevented human life from being lost, so I'm not convinced help from the feds isn't necessary.

It's not like the DHS report prevented those human lives from being lost, either.
True. Richard Clarke's memo also didn't prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Is that an indictment on the reports, or the action (or lack thereof) based on the reports? Is it logical to point out reports that accurately predict future events and suggest that they were wasteful and shouldn't be generated thereafter?
It's not an indictment of the DHS report. That report wasn't meant to prevent attacks like this.

Which is why these attacks aren't a vindication of the report, and don't show its usefulness.

What was the intention of the report writers?
To assess and describe certain risks relating to certain types of terrorism, and encourage local law enforcement agencies to report any suspicious activities to the DHS and FBI.

As far as an individual, acting alone, walking into a museum (or church) and shooting a security guard (or abortion doctor) goes, there's really nothing helpful the report can offer to prevent that. Now that it's happened, I'm sure it has been reported to the DHS and FBI. But it would have been anyway.

The type of stuff that the report wants local law enforcement to keep the DHS & FBI apprised of prospectively, presumably, are group activities involving Neo-Nazis, skinheads, and those who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. :goodposting: So the feds can keep a closer eye on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.