What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Are you a terrorism threat? New rule from Homeland Security (1 Viewer)

Ignoring the fact that Chet either didn’t read the link or didn’t understand it - it is concerning how information is spread nowadays.  We joke about finding good sources but it’s a sad reality - we can’t really trust most things we read or see online.  

 
AAABatteries said:
Ignoring the fact that Chet either didn’t read the link or didn’t understand it - it is concerning how information is spread nowadays.  We joke about finding good sources but it’s a sad reality - we can’t really trust most things we read or see online.  
Click to expand...


Thanks. Can you summarize into a sentence or two what you think the statement means?

Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland

The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation. While the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year, the convergence of the following factors has increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment: (1) the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions; (2) continued calls for violence directed at U.S. critical infrastructure; soft targets and mass gatherings; faith-based institutions, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques; institutions of higher education; racial and religious minorities; government facilities and personnel, including law enforcement and the military; the media; and perceived ideological opponents; and (3) calls by foreign terrorist organizations for attacks on the United States based on recent events.
Click to expand...

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. Can you summarize into a sentence or two what you think the statement means?
Click to expand...
That FBGs is ahead of the curve pointing out that the “internet” and more specifically social media is rampant with bad actors sowing discourse that could cause actual terrorists to act.

 
AAABatteries said:
That FBGs is ahead of the curve pointing out that the “internet” and more specifically social media is rampant with bad actors sowing discourse that could cause actual terrorists to act.
Click to expand...
Misinformation and lies pushed by domestic and foreign bad actors is adding fuel to US citizens who already feel wronged or are angry to potentially participate in violent acts against certain groups. 

 
AAABatteries said:
That FBGs is ahead of the curve pointing out that the “internet” and more specifically social media is rampant with bad actors sowing discourse that could cause actual terrorists to act.
Click to expand...


Thank you. How do you see that as different from what @chet said? 

You are now a "terrorism threat" if you share "misleading narratives which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions."  
Click to expand...


Are you saying the distinction is the government isn't saying you're an actual terrorism threat if you share misleading narratives. But that you're just enabling actual terrorists to act?

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thank you. How do you see that as different from what @chet said? 

Are you saying the distinction is the government isn't saying you're an actual terrorism threat if you share misleading narratives. But that you're just enabling actual terrorists to act?
Click to expand...
Yes, you got it - that is my take.

ETA - I guess maybe “enabling” is too strong a word.  You are contributing to making an environment chaotic which could lead to making a terrorist act.  Would I find that person guilty of anything in a court of law - definitely not. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And count me in the group that finds the government choosing what to censor and what is disinformation to be troubling (to say the least).  Problem is, I have no clue who should be doing those things except myself in my own life.

 
This heightened threat awareness document indicates an initial span of four months. Not sure what to make of that. I also really wasn't sure if it was meant to target originators of misleading information only or folks that furthered that spreading of misinformation also.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thank you. How do you see that as different from what @chet said? 

Are you saying the distinction is the government isn't saying you're an actual terrorism threat if you share misleading narratives. But that you're just enabling actual terrorists to act?
Click to expand...
“Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:

The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:

For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.”

“Data from the New America Foundation reveal there were zero — yes, zero — successful far-right, left-wing or Islamist militant mass terrorist attacks in the United States so far this year. “
 

Far Right Wing Brookings Institute

 
This declaration itself by Homeland Security is meant to exacerbate societal friction and encourage unrest. They don't need to tell the public any of this to find terrorists both domestic and foreign. They've never had any problems before silently investigating and removing threats. Some we hear about. A lot we never do.

Now suddenly it's so overwhelming that they have to warn the public about dangerous misinformation? I don't think so. They are doing it to make people fear each other and distrust information when it disagrees with the government. If you don't buy into the official narrative, you're dangerous to their goals. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
It seems to me if you are “contributing to making an environment chaotic which could lead to making a terrorist act” that you would be a “terrorism threat”. 
Click to expand...
Gotcha - yes, I disagree but it seems we are getting caught up in terminology.  Or maybe it’s just me.  I don’t think somebody who posts a meme is a terrorism threat - I think the dude with the bomb who reads the meme and potentially acts on it is.  

 
AAABatteries said:
Gotcha - yes, I disagree but it seems we are getting caught up in terminology.  Or maybe it’s just me.  I don’t think somebody who posts a meme is a terrorism threat - I think the dude with the bomb who reads the meme and potentially acts on it is.  
Click to expand...


Well, I think that's the point - who gets to make these calls?  The government?  You don't think they couldn't bake something up if they wanted to get someone? 

This is why it's unbelievable to me in the GoFundMe/Canada Truckers thread that people are okay with the Canadian government "asking" GoFundMe to shut down the campaign.  It's the same concept - the government really isn't "asking".  They'll drum something up to get their way, manufacture evidence or threaten if they have to using vague and nebulous documents like this one.  Slippery slope.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
Gotcha - yes, I disagree but it seems we are getting caught up in terminology.  Or maybe it’s just me.  I don’t think somebody who posts a meme is a terrorism threat - I think the dude with the bomb who reads the meme and potentially acts on it is.  
Click to expand...
yet.

"spreading information" is a very wide and slippery slope. You may share a meme to your 100 friends and laugh it off.....but what volume of followers is the cut off from it going from "a harmless meme" to "missinformation"? 

There are enough lawyers on the boards who can tell you that "getting hung up in terminology" is huge. And IMO many laws and guidelines like this are intentionally written vaguely so that there is a wide ability to selectively pick those who fall into the definition and those who "wellll.....technically don't" 

 
glvsav37 said:
yet.

"spreading information" is a very wide and slippery slope. You may share a meme to your 100 friends and laugh it off.....but what volume of followers is the cut off from it going from "a harmless meme" to "missinformation"? 

There are enough lawyers on the boards who can tell you that "getting hung up in terminology" is huge. And IMO many laws and guidelines like this are intentionally written vaguely so that there is a wide ability to selectively pick those who fall into the definition and those who "wellll.....technically don't" 
Click to expand...


EXACTLY!  :thumbup:

I was trying to word my post above to echo the same sentiment but you did it better.  

 
Desert_Power said:
The claims in the OP are not at all supported by reading the linked alert from DHS.  This is a great example of how misleading claims are spread. 
Click to expand...


What the press release actually means, in terms of media optics

1) DHS is justifying it's expenditures and current budget, and like all government bureaucracies, is trying to sell the narrative that it needs more "reach", more budget, more personnel, more resources and more overall power. The end goal of any established bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself first and foremost.

2) DHS wants to distance itself from this current administrations and current Party apparatus' lean towards Anti-Semetism and Afghanistan failure by mixing it in a cloud of other factors they barely care about at all. While the "left" currently controls Big Finance, there are massive fractures in place because of the many Anti-Semetic leanings and statements and actions of major players from that side of the aisle. You can't win states ( and their natural electoral votes)  without taking the big cities, and you can't take big cities until you have a strangle hold at how "governance" is applied at the smaller local level. People are attuned to what happens around the country but they are driven and motivated mostly by what they see in their day to day lives. You see that impact in Virginia. No matter people's views of large scale political topics, they believed their children were under formal and structured attack by bad faith actors in terms of elected officials and and a school system that had proven to fail them again and again.

Pushback against identity politics won't be the final nail in the coffin for the woke radical left, it's going to be coming in two directions

A) Increased aggression towards Elon Musk is idiotic. He is critical to national security and is thus beloved by the military industrial complex. His flaws will be written off by the masses as the "quirks of genius" just like Belichick is seen as so committed and driven to win that his run roughshod style is tolerated. Opposing the military industrial complex and it's logical step brother, the various intelligence agencies, is like running into a wheat thresher. How did that work out for JFK and Princess Diana? Media Optics 101 - See who you can't criticize, that's who has real power.

B) You can't go to war with America's Jewish establishment and win. You need big money from major players to buy people off, leverage people, purchase votes, ballot harvest, pay for marketing and win elections. Doing so will lose you a major cross section of Hollywood ( which is the most effective propaganda tool for the masses) and major areas of Big Finance and Big Tech. You can't have situations like Jamal Bowman in New York, where he tries to kiss the ring of the Jewish establishment on one hand and keep lock step with Ilhan Omar, another Squad member, with the other and hold critical seats.

3) Major players at DHS are expected the 2022 Mid Terms and the 2024 general cycle to go for the GOP. They are desperately trying to save their careers at the top of the food chain. You can't blame tactical commanders for following orders. However strategic commanders will either be told to fall on their swords or be thrown on top of them. Someone needs to pay for Afghanistan. Someone needs to pay for the failures of law and order all across American now. Someone needs to pay for the swinging gate at the Southern Border. Someone will say that's public policy above the paygrade of some of these people. That's just too bad. Some people at DHS were put into impossible situations and there were often no wins possible. But still blame needs to be assigned. Just like on a chessboard, pawns get killed first.

The current Democratic Party, up and down the ticket, have likely lost the military vote for the next five general cycles. And do you think the majority of law enforcement in America is so favorable to the Democratic Party right now? Endless rioting and looting driven by cooked political agendas in Big Blue Cities, Defund The Police and being smeared as a bunch of psychopaths looking to randomly execute any black people they see on the streets? Thus our national "Praetorian Guard" will shift with the winds.

4) DHS needs a front door and back door counter narrative to the disaster in Afghanistan. And I'm not just talking about babies being tossed in razor wire and 19 million women and little girls being gang raped and sodomized as the spoils of war. Biden's "withdrawal" from Afghanistan just gave billions of dollars ( paid by your tax dollars and my tax dollars and the future tax dollars of your children and grandchildren) in high end weaponry to terrorists. We are talking about hardware and resources that will be used to kill Americans and our allies and innocents for generations to come. DHS needs to get in front of the eventual fallout of all this. Eventually someone somewhere is going to be hit with those weapons and resources and it's going to be a story that no one will be able to spin control and it won't go away. DHS needs to say they did something and "it's not our fault, we tried to prepare but the blame should go here to X and here to Y and here to Z"

Joe Biden ( well Susan Rice as proxy for Barack Obama) gave our natural enemies the weapons to murder your children. And he made you pay for it. And he made your children pay for it. And Jen Psaki is sent out to gas light you to demand you thank them for it.

Everyone has their free speech and everyone has their right to their viewpoint, I won't take that from anyone. But I have no rational understanding how anyone who is a parent in this country could support this current administration. Jacking up the economy even further, screwing up the pandemic response, destroying the lives of countless small business owners who were burned and looted out, trying to make pariahs out of our law enforcement community, allowing countless career criminals into our country and past our Southern Border unchecked, arming terrorists with our tax dollars, cooking our educational system, showing weakness to our global large scale threats like China, taking away law and order in major cities and denying functional governance to push cheap intersectional identity politics.

"But Trump" is just not going to cut it here. But that's the opinion of the woke radical left here and it's their right to have it.

Here's my opinion - The radical leftists here got on their hands and knees, gave up their freedom, their safety, their economic stability, emptied their wallets and begged for their children to be cannon fodder. And they peacock around like they just won the Power Ball because "at least Trump is gone" 

IS THIS THE KIND OF WORLD YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO INHERIT?

Cheap woke pedantic low information voters with paper thin critical thinking abilities enraged like human sock puppets by cooked shock marketing social media clickbait outrage instead of realizing they are begging for their children to die.

The real "terrorism" is the casual indifference to the clear and present threat point to all our children. Some of you just don't care as long your "tribe" wins or looks like they win. OK, you chose that. And your children will eventually pick up the tab for it in blood.

 
glvsav37 said:
yet.

"spreading information" is a very wide and slippery slope. You may share a meme to your 100 friends and laugh it off.....but what volume of followers is the cut off from it going from "a harmless meme" to "missinformation"? 

There are enough lawyers on the boards who can tell you that "getting hung up in terminology" is huge. And IMO many laws and guidelines like this are intentionally written vaguely so that there is a wide ability to selectively pick those who fall into the definition and those who "wellll.....technically don't" 
Click to expand...
I think you are making some general points but just to clarify on things.  If “yet” was directed at me then no, I’ll never think that - if directed at government then sure, with the path we’ve been heading I could see it.

I’m not aware of any laws addressing misinformation but I would be highly skeptical of them no matter which tribe proposed them.

 
Unlike pornography, I’ll know it when I see it doesn’t apply - we probably all see and consume misinformation daily and have no idea because it’s impossible to know everything.  I have no clue how we combat that - just an observation.

 
Im also guessing this has more to do with large operations of bots spreading things than individuals who would share an article.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Thank you. How do you see that as different from what @chet said? 

Are you saying the distinction is the government isn't saying you're an actual terrorism threat if you share misleading narratives. But that you're just enabling actual terrorists to act?
Click to expand...


"Some people are using the laughing emoji to troll and get a response out of people" doesn't mean "anyone that uses the laughing emoji is a troll".

 
I’ve read the statement several times now. And I gotta admit, I’m very troubled by it. I’m usually on the liberal side of these issues, and I hate conspiracy theories, and I despise the current twin right wing conspiracy theories that are damaging our country so much (I am referring to “Trump won the election” and “Covid vaccines are a government plot, etc.”) But: 

1. A terrorist is someone who commits violence for political purposes, mostly to cause fear and violence. 
2. It might be legitimate to call someone a terrorist if they publicly call for political violence without actually committing it themselves- but the language used had better be very direct, without ambiguity, and it had better be before the fact, NOT a justification of said violence after it occurred. 
3. But somebody who offers false or misleading information that might later be used by other people to promote violence- that’s not a terrorist. I don’t know what that is. It’s not something that should be considered illegal, if I understand our Constitution, and the 1st Amendment, correctly. And who is to decide what is false or misleading? 
 

The last point is why this statement is so troubling and IMO, awful. I will never be on the side of conspiracy theorists, but this needs to be immediately condemned by anyone who cares about freedom of speech, IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
I’ve read the statement several times now. And I gotta admit, I’m very troubled by it. I’m usually on the liberal side of these issues, and I hate conspiracy theories, and I despise the current twin right wing conspiracy theories that are damaging our country so much (I am referring to “Trump won the election” and “Covid vaccines are a government plot, etc.”) But: 

1. A terrorist is someone who commits violence for political purposes, mostly to cause fear and violence. 
2. It might be legitimate to call someone a terrorist if they publicly call for political violence without actually committing it themselves- but the language used had better be very direct, without ambiguity, and it had better be before the fact, NOT a justification of said violence after it occurred. 
3. But somebody who offers false or misleading information that might later be used by other people to promote violence- that’s not a terrorist. I don’t know what that is. It’s not something that should be considered illegal, if I understand our Constitution, and the 1st Amendment, correctly. And who is to decide what is false or misleading? 
 

The last point is why this statement is so troubling and IMO, awful. I will never be on the side of conspiracy theorists, but this needs to be immediately condemned by anyone who cares about freedom of speech, IMO. 
Click to expand...


Are you sure?

While the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year, the convergence of the following factors has increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment:

Contributing to a volatile, unpredictable and complex threat environment <> you are a terrorist.  YMMV.

 
Again, this is how I'm reading the advisory - but I understand a slippery slope argument.  However, to put it another way:

FBG bannable offenses :: terrorism

Trolling at FBG :: Misinformation, meme, etc.

Has the troll committed a bannable act.  No*.  Has the troll (potentially) contributed to an environment which caused somebody else doing something bannable?  Yes, in theory.

*I'm working under the premise that trolling isn't bannable to make the analogy.

 
AAABatteries said:
Are you sure?

While the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year, the convergence of the following factors has increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment:

Contributing to a volatile, unpredictable and complex threat environment <> you are a terrorist.  YMMV.
Click to expand...
I think you’re  mincing words in the same way that @Stoneworker did in the New York Times reporting of the RNC (which was accurate IMO.) 

When you have a report called “Summary of terrorist threat” and you discuss in detail those who are spreading “false or misleading” information, you’re essentially calling them terrorists with all that entails. It’s no different from Hoover’s FBI in the 1950s which attempted to label any leftist writings (or even songs) as contributing to the Communist plot to overthrow our government. Whether it comes from the right or left, this is very dangerous stuff IMO. 

 
AAABatteries said:
Again, this is how I'm reading the advisory - but I understand a slippery slope argument.  However, to put it another way:

FBG bannable offenses :: terrorism

Trolling at FBG :: Misinformation, meme, etc.

Has the troll committed a bannable act.  No*.  Has the troll (potentially) contributed to an environment which caused somebody else doing something bannable?  Yes, in theory.

*I'm working under the premise that trolling isn't bannable to make the analogy.
Click to expand...
The problem with this analogy is that the FBG is not the government. As I’ve tried to point out to conservatives again and again when they accuse social media of censorship, there is a vital difference here. When the government gets involved in deciding what should or should not be said, that’s when it’s a problem. Not what Footballguys or Facebook or Instagram do. That’s their business. 

 
timschochet said:
I think you’re  mincing words in the same way that @Stoneworker did in the New York Times reporting of the RNC (which was accurate IMO.) 

When you have a report called “Summary of terrorist threat” and you discuss in detail those who are spreading “false or misleading” information, you’re essentially calling them terrorists with all that entails. It’s no different from Hoover’s FBI in the 1950s which attempted to label any leftist writings (or even songs) as contributing to the Communist plot to overthrow our government. Whether it comes from the right or left, this is very dangerous stuff IMO. 
Click to expand...


I'm fine disagreeing here - but I feel there's are reason they included this phrase:

While the conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year, the convergence of the following factors has increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment:

And I'm not mincing words.  I'm reading the advisory and taking it at face value.  I feel others (namely you) are ignoring the actual words and choosing rather to focus on what you feel they are "essentially" doing.

 
timschochet said:
The problem with this analogy is that the FBG is not the government. As I’ve tried to point out to conservatives again and again when they accuse social media of censorship, there is a vital difference here. When the government gets involved in deciding what should or should not be said, that’s when it’s a problem. Not what Footballguys or Facebook or Instagram do. That’s their business. 
Click to expand...


No where in the advisory did they say....not only are these people contributing to this environment but we are going to do something about it.  You're jumping to conclusions that I don't think are there.  Could they go further and actually do something - I wouldn't put that past either side.  Will this provide cover to corporations to ban things - maybe, but as you said - that is their prerogative.

 
AAABatteries said:
No where in the advisory did they say....not only are these people contributing to this environment but we are going to do something about it.  You're jumping to conclusions that I don't think are there.  Could they go further and actually do something - I wouldn't put that past either side.  Will this provide cover to corporations to ban things - maybe, but as you said - that is their prerogative.
Click to expand...
By putting it down on an official paper like this, the government is already “doing something about it.” The paper ITSELF is a damper on free speech. This is not a question of slippery slopes; I don’t believe in those and never argue them. The paper is bad all by itself. 

 
timschochet said:
By putting it down on an official paper like this, the government is already “doing something about it.” The paper ITSELF is a damper on free speech. This is not a question of slippery slopes; I don’t believe in those and never argue them. The paper is bad all by itself. 
Click to expand...
How?

If it’s not a slippery slope argument then you have to answer specifically how this advisory does anything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I don’t understand is, what does this mean practically? Are people who spread misinformation going to be monitored? Government officials knocking on people’s doors? I assume only in the most extreme situations.  

 
AAABatteries said:
How?

If it’s not a slippery slope argument then you have to answering specifically how this advisory does anything.
Click to expand...
I can’t explain my argument in the way you’re demanding. It’s not something that is as concrete as that. All I can repeat is that when the government takes a public stand against freedom of speech, it’s a damper on freedom of speech. And when it’s part of a report about terrorism, it’s making an insidious charge against people who, whatever their faults, have nothing to do with terrorism. 

 
AAABatteries said:
That FBGs is ahead of the curve pointing out that the “internet” and more specifically social media is rampant with bad actors sowing discourse that could cause actual terrorists to act.
Click to expand...
These boards may be ahead of the curve in pointing it out, but it is also ahead of the curve in having said disinformation/conspiracies spread. I encounter this stuff in other places, but I've usually already seen it here first. That isn't to say it originates here, just my own experience.

See the false claims about Biden spending $30 million to supply addicts with crack pipes as an example.

 
timschochet said:
I can’t explain my argument in the way you’re demanding. It’s not something that is as concrete as that. All I can repeat is that when the government takes a public stand against freedom of speech, it’s a damper on freedom of speech. And when it’s part of a report about terrorism, it’s making an insidious charge against people who, whatever their faults, have nothing to do with terrorism. 
Click to expand...
I don’t feel pointing out that some speech can  incite or contributes to an inflammatory environment == a stand against free speech.  I think this is our fundamental disagreement.  Especially when no specific examples of said speech are given.

I still understand a slippery slope argument but since you claim you aren’t making one then I have to assume you are just projecting what you think may happen.

 
Desert_Power said:
These boards may be ahead of the curve in pointing it out, but it is also ahead of the curve in having said disinformation/conspiracies spread. I encounter this stuff in other places, but I've usually already seen it here first. That isn't to say it originates here, just my own experience.

See the false claims about Biden spending $30 million to supply addicts with crack pipes as an example.
Click to expand...
The ignore function works wonders.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Freedom From Religion
2 3
Replies
141
Views
8K
Amused to Death
A
GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
2K
FairWarning
FairWarning
Max Power
Every branch of the U.S. military is struggling to meet its 2022 recruiting goals
3 4 5
Replies
203
Views
11K
Max Power
Max Power

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top