PDA

View Full Version : LA street gangs infiltrate US army


shooterx10
03-16-2006, 11:08 AM
This is an old story, but I thought it'd be relevant to post it on here.

----------------------------------------

LA street gangs infiltrate US army: The
Crips and the Bloods have
( Weekly Journal, The ) July 27, 1995
----------------------------------------------
LA street gangs infiltrate US army: The Crips
and the Bloods have been. uncovered within
the US military, and linked to drive-by
shootings and organised drug trafficking.
Vivienne Francis and Gregory Vistica
investigate ALLEN KING and his three children - aged
18-months and four and seven years old - were
hacked to death by a man who believed King
had told the police about a crack house he
operated. A gang killing in an American
inner-city ghetto? No. These murders took
place on an American army base and their
killer was an army specialist.

According to a special investigation in
American magazine Newsweek, street gang
activity, once confined to places like
South-Central Los Angeles, Chicago and New
York, has reared its ugly head in the US
military.

Notorious LA street gangs such as the Crips,
the Bloods and Chicago' s Folk Gangsters are
now active in all four branches of the armed
services and at more than 50 military bases
around the United States.

Although most gang crimes - which include
drug trafficking, robbery, assault and at
least 10 murders to date - have taken place
off-duty and off base, there are signs that
the problem is growing.

Army-enlisted men have been photographed
flashing gang signs in the middle of the Gulf
War. Some gang members have also staked out
their "turf" on aircraft carriers at sea, and
the navy was recently forced to build a wall,
1,000 foot long, to protect residents of one
of its housing complexes in California after
a spate of drive-by shootings.

So far, the gang-related activities - fights,
shootings, small drug trafficking - have been
relatively minor crimes, but some
investigators fear notorious gangs, like the
Crips, have a bigger goal in mind.

According to Newsweek, the US Justice
Department produced a report in 1994 that
warned some gangs had access to grenades,
[Image] machine guns, rocket launchers and military
explosives. It added that members who are or
have been in the services are teaching others
military tactics, and that "with arms,
weapons proficiency and tactics, some street
gangs now have the ability to effectively
engage in terrorist activities" .

Newsweek believes "the US military is
inevitably affected by all the problems of
society at large - including the spread of
gang-related crime and violence". Though they
add "it is still surprising that the
military, supposedly a bastion of good order,
is being shaken by gang activity in the
ranks".

"The navy doesn't like to admit [its gang
problem]," Sergeant Wes McBride of the Los
Angeles Police Department, himself a former
marine, told the magazine, "because it
destroyed the image of discipline." But
Newsweek said it had obtained confidential
documents suggesting that the forces were
taking steps to control the problem.

It said that the commander of the navy's
Pacific Fleet, which supervises navy bases
all along the West Coast, warned commanders
about rising gang four years ago, and the
investigative Service had begun a
computerised system to report and track
gang-related incidents.

In addition, the army and air force manuals
warn: "The influence of gangs appears to be
growing and the frequency of gang violence
related to the USAF will likely increase.
There is no such thing as a `wannabee' . If a
person wants to be a gang member, acts and
dresses like a gang member, he is a gang
member and just as dangerous."

The manual now also lists descriptions of
gang hand signs and gang colours to help
criminal investigators spot covert gang
activity.

Ethnic NewsWatch ) SoftLine Information,
Inc., Stamford, CT

Gregory Francis, Vivienne; Vistica, LA street
gangs infiltrate US army: The Crips and the
Bloods have., Weekly Journal, The,
07-27-1995, pp PG.

50ae
03-16-2006, 11:29 AM
I left the Navy in 98 and I started noticing the bangers in 96 on the carrier. I can only imagine it has gotten worse in the last 8 years.

ohsmily
03-16-2006, 11:56 AM
I left the Navy in 98 and I started noticing the bangers in 96 on the carrier. I can only imagine it has gotten worse in the last 8 years.

They should be taken aside and beaten severely until they renounce their gang affiliation. The military is a bigger "gang" than the pieces of sh-t that are affiliated with true street gangs. Thus, while in the military, the gang members are not as powerful as the mass of others who should be against them (upstanding troops).

grammaton76
03-16-2006, 12:05 PM
That would've worked, back before the US military started caring about peoples' "feelings".

The thought of recruits having "time out" cards to give drill instructors sickens me... if you can't take it, walk.

Fjold
03-16-2006, 1:13 PM
How is this different than the 60's and 70's? I remember areas of large ships that were no-man's land then for all of the drug trafficking, gangs, etc. You can imagine how bad it was when judges used to tell punks to either join the military or go to jail.

NRAhighpowershooter
03-16-2006, 2:15 PM
I'm not PC in the least... I say line 'em up against a wall..... gang membership is illegal anywany.. eradicate them!!!! :mad: They have no purpose in society but to cause harm. :mad:

bear308
03-16-2006, 2:32 PM
I'm not PC in the least... I say line 'em up against a wall..... gang membership is illegal anywany.. eradicate them!!!! :mad: They have no purpose in society but to cause harm. :mad:
+1, I remember reading an article recently about bangers getting into the Marines or Army and learning how to ambush, then when they got out they would train they're bro's how to ambush cops. Anything like that should result in public hangings.

Unsub
03-16-2006, 3:00 PM
how about seeing bloods taggings in communal barracks? yep... bangers are nothing but trash.

461
03-16-2006, 3:05 PM
Maybe it would be a good idea for the military to stop actively recruiting them!!

grammaton76
03-16-2006, 3:23 PM
+1, I remember reading an article recently about bangers getting into the Marines or Army and learning how to ambush, then when they got out they would train they're bro's how to ambush cops. Anything like that should result in public hangings.

Why yes, and so should the sale of deadly combat simulation games such as Counterstrike and SOCOM! Erm - wait, no.

I agree that actually ambushing cops should be punishable by public hanging, however we're going down a very slippery slope when we start to ban knowledge. We already have, a little, with the restriction of full auto conversion manuals and such. That's bad enough; we don't need to get to the point where the discussion of common military tactics is dangerous. For that matter, we'd probably get into trouble over here at Calguns for that!

m1371
03-16-2006, 3:57 PM
Maybe it would be a good idea for the military to stop actively recruiting them!!

That's quite a dumb comment.

If anything, the DoD has policies in place that prevent gang members from joining the military. Tattoos are the number one sign of gang affiliation and all the military recruiting stations check for them.

Many of the gangs across the country intentionally attempt to get their people into the military so they can get the training and bring it back to the streets. Has been happening for decades. That means certain kids in the gangs are intentionally kept "off the radar" so a background check won't pick up on them and NO tats to set off the gangbanger alarms at MEPS.

If a kid walks in with no ink and says "No" to questions about gang affiliations, how the heck is a recruiter supposed to know otherwise?

There are thousands of kids joining every year who have lied about SOMETHING when they joined. And a very small number ever get found out or dealt with.

When I went to Marine bootcamp in '89 we had four guys who were all from Chicago, from the same neighborhood with matching tats. About halfway through boot they had pushed the limit with bullying and intimidating other recruits and got their asses handed to them one night by over 3/4s the recruit platoon. They had been bragging for a month about the fact that they were all from the same gang in "Chi-Town" and how they "wuz gunna run the Corps" when they got out of boot.

Needless to say after a latenight brawl in the recruit barracks the four of them ALL disappeared and were never seen again. Word was that NIS/CID had come to pick them up and they were jailed.

As for the military "actively recruiting them"...... Again, that's a dumb comment. Why would the military go looking for gangbangers who are going to be disciplinary problems? Doesn't make much sense to start off with in the first place.

bear308
03-16-2006, 4:13 PM
Why yes, and so should the sale of deadly combat simulation games such as Counterstrike and SOCOM! Erm - wait, no.

I agree that actually ambushing cops should be punishable by public hanging, however we're going down a very slippery slope when we start to ban knowledge. We already have, a little, with the restriction of full auto conversion manuals and such. That's bad enough; we don't need to get to the point where the discussion of common military tactics is dangerous. For that matter, we'd probably get into trouble over here at Calguns for that!
I agree. Knowledge should never be banned, it's the same as bans on firearms. Potential to break the law is not breaking the law. I could murder someone with a stick but choose not too. But joining the military for the sole purpose of training to kill police should be treated as treason.

m98
03-16-2006, 7:10 PM
But joining the military for the sole purpose of training to kill police should be treated as treason.


That's the way the gang bang world's going to. They use eduacation and government training so they may excel at what they do best- gang bang/drive by's/ evading LEO's/ learning to use the law to it's fullest extent-especially in the PRK where it'll be so much easier to get away with stuff with just a "slap on the hands".


Remember the Ex marine who shot and killed an LEO in modesto/merced after he got off from duty.

461
03-16-2006, 7:34 PM
m1371- I'm pretty sure I don't appreciate your comment but I'm willing to let it go in the interest of decorum. It might surprise you to know that I am 20 plus year military veteran with a significant amount of experience with newly recruited members over the last ten years and also have several friends who are currently recruiters so I know what I'm talking about. You mention "Ink" as keeping people out of the service and I have to tell you the only ink that poses a problem is if it's on the face or hands and gang tattoos are not specifically prohibited. Recruiters aren't worried about whether they are getting discipline problems, they're worried about filling quotas to keep from being hammered on their next review and having their career ruined by a tour that most of them didn't ask for in the first place. In the current climate of conflict the services are going out of their way to get anybody they can to fill vacancies and that means going closer and closer to the bottom of the barrel and being more and more willing to "Overlook" certain less than desireable traits to put someone in.

dwtt
03-16-2006, 8:28 PM
When I went to Marine bootcamp in '89 we had four guys who were all from Chicago, from the same neighborhood with matching tats. About halfway through boot they had pushed the limit with bullying and intimidating other recruits and got their asses handed to them one night by over 3/4s the recruit platoon. They had been bragging for a month about the fact that they were all from the same gang in "Chi-Town" and how they "wuz gunna run the Corps" when they got out of boot.

Needless to say after a latenight brawl in the recruit barracks the four of them ALL disappeared and were never seen again. Word was that NIS/CID had come to pick them up and they were jailed.

We had a similar thing happen in boot camp, except the DI looked the other way. We were in the field for 2 weeks in Camp Pendelton and halfway through, one of the DI's took the entire platoon over a hill out of sight of any officers or anyone else. He said, "I don't see anything", then turned around. Half the platoon started beating the sh*t out of these two mexican gang members from Chicago, while the other half just watched. Later when the series officer questioned each recruit individually when we returned to barracks, everyone said they didn't see anything and didn't know how those two fell down and hurt themselves. In the military, the punks from street gangs are still outnumbered by the decent folks, just like in civilian society.

accordingtoome
03-16-2006, 8:36 PM
wow this is nothing new. I personally know a lot of gang memebers that have gone into the service and turned there life arround for the better. ITs not all bad. These guys would have ended up dead on the streets but the service gave them that second chance at life.

xLusi0n
03-16-2006, 11:09 PM
+1, I remember reading an article recently about bangers getting into the Marines or Army and learning how to ambush, then when they got out they would train they're bro's how to ambush cops. Anything like that should result in public hangings.

I got to see a public hanging in Kuwait. I wish we had them in the U.S.

shecky
03-16-2006, 11:10 PM
Sounds like the military isn't in much of a position to turn down many people these days.

ISTR a few folks signing up in the past on strong recommendation of a court. Basically, sign up or look at some jail time. Let's face it. The military has been viewed often as something of a dumping ground for some folks who would otherwise be too destructive in civilian life. A lot of times, it works wonders for those folks, too.

grammaton76
03-16-2006, 11:51 PM
ISTR a few folks signing up in the past on strong recommendation of a court. Basically, sign up or look at some jail time.

I've been hoping that, if the DOJ manages to be successful in prosecuting one of us, that they'd at least present non-violent AWB offenders the option of military service as an alternative. I don't know where the threshold is on getting the military option, though... I suspect that they'd rather let the druggies use it as a get out of jail card, than us.

jdberger
03-17-2006, 12:19 AM
wow this is nothing new. I personally know a lot of gang memebers that have gone into the service and turned there life arround for the better. ITs not all bad. These guys would have ended up dead on the streets but the service gave them that second chance at life.
This is just a personal anecdote -
My best friend in the Army was one of these Go In The Army Or Go To Jail folks. He had a charming tattoo of Germany on his neck. He also had a little "WP" on his ankle. Still, something in Basic turned him around. We were always together. He always had my back and vice versa. Without the Army giving him a chance, he'd be in jail for some hate crime. Instead, he has a great job and a beautiful family and a new lease on life.

As far as gang members go, I don't really see the military as being too tolerant. I can see the fear, "Oh no! We've trained these criminals to be Rambo and then set them loose in our cities." I guess I'd rather worry about other things.....

Mesa Tactical
03-17-2006, 3:17 AM
I'm not PC in the least... I say line 'em up against a wall..... gang membership is illegal anywany.. eradicate them!!!! :mad: They have no purpose in society but to cause harm. :mad:

If that article from 1995 is still true, apparently right now they are fighting on your behalf in Iraq.

ohsmily
03-17-2006, 8:13 AM
If that article from 1995 is still true, apparently right now they are fighting on your behalf in Iraq.

Or perhaps they are trafficking drugs, intimidating other troops, raping Iraqis, stealing equipment, etc. But I am glad you are optimistic.

m1371
03-17-2006, 10:45 AM
m1371- I'm pretty sure I don't appreciate your comment but I'm willing to let it go in the interest of decorum. It might surprise you to know that I am 20 plus year military veteran with a significant amount of experience with newly recruited members over the last ten years and also have several friends who are currently recruiters so I know what I'm talking about. You mention "Ink" as keeping people out of the service and I have to tell you the only ink that poses a problem is if it's on the face or hands and gang tattoos are not specifically prohibited. Recruiters aren't worried about whether they are getting discipline problems, they're worried about filling quotas to keep from being hammered on their next review and having their career ruined by a tour that most of them didn't ask for in the first place. In the current climate of conflict the services are going out of their way to get anybody they can to fill vacancies and that means going closer and closer to the bottom of the barrel and being more and more willing to "Overlook" certain less than desireable traits to put someone in.


Freaking WOW.

You don't like MY comment.

BIG WHOOP.

You made a dumb comment in my opinion, based on my experience as a recruiter for the Marines.

Guess what. I don't particularly care for YOUR comment in your previous post. It was an insult to recruiters everywhere, regardless of their service affiliation. Just paint everyone with the same brush.

If you want to go back and forth over who doesn't appreciate the other's comments, go right ahead.

I stand behind MY OPINION that your comment about military recruiters actively seeking gang members for entry into the US armed forces WAS DUMB.

I did my time on the street looking for QUALIFIED applicants and I found them without having to active look for bangers to fill my quota. The USMC Recruiter's school at MCRD San Diego clearly addressed the myriad of legal eligibility requirements for a prospective recruit and gang membership was viewed as being a disqualifying factor.

The RS (Recruiting Station) I was assigned to had guidelines for what was considered "gang ink" and it WAS checked when an applicant went through their physical exam at MEPS. The location was irrelevant, it was the fact the applicant was wearing gang ink that would set off an alarm.

I also take issue with your comment about how "recruiters aren't worried about whether they are getting discipline problems". In my own experience, recruiters DO worry about the quality of person they're putting in. With the Marines being as small a service as it is, there tends to be very good odds a recruiter returning to the Fleet at the end of his/her tour will run into many of their enlistees.

Yes, there is a quota system. And recruiters get hammered for not making quotas, especially if they are consistently failing.

But given a choice between putting in an applicant who is "dirty" (ex- openly gang affiliated) or not making quota for the month, a recruiting command tends to to the right thing. There are multiple checks and balances in place to ensure an applicant is good to go before they are enlisted and shipped to boot camp.

Are there waivers available for applicants who might have made mistakes?

Yes, there are. But not everyone can get a waiver for everything.

Are there applicants who are less than truthful in the enlistment process?

Yes. And a lot of them get caught for lying.

Are there dirty recruiters who will do anything it takes to make quota?

Yes, and they also tend to get caught sooner or later.



Your original comment about how the military is actively recruiting gang members is an insult to the thousands of active duty military recruiters who are out there busting their humps every day trying to get solid qualified applicants to join the services.

You should know that the actions of one or two recruiters who are willing to look the other way are NOT indicative of the military as a whole.

I would think that someone with as much time in the service as you claim to have would know better than to make an unsubstantiated blanket statement to that effect on a public forum.


[/RANT]

461
03-17-2006, 11:52 AM
Have a nice day!

dwtt
03-17-2006, 8:16 PM
Freaking WOW.
You don't like MY comment.
BIG WHOOP.
You made a dumb comment in my opinion, based on my experience as a recruiter for the Marines.


M1371, I think you should calm down. 461 said he was former military, not necessarily a devil dog. Things are a lot different in the other services and they might see things differently. When was the last time you saw an Air Force airman hump a 50lb pack, with deuce gear, kevlar, carry an M16 and live in the field for a week? To many members of the other services, an infantryman might look like a dirty barbarian.

CowtownBallin
03-17-2006, 8:42 PM
When you recruit in troubled neighborhoods and con teens into a contract with false promises of adventure and fun, you end up with these situations.

But if they recruited the right way, we wouldn't have any soldiers to send off to become cannon fodder overseas for unnecessary wars. Sweet. Young adults can control foreign policy indirectly by not enlisting, and I hope more will choose college or technical schools over the military, might get us to stop invading people for a decade or two.

xLusi0n
03-17-2006, 9:56 PM
I don't think we're doing enough invading...partially because of media and being P.C. It really wasn't that long ago before we stopped expanding west...imagine if we didn't...funny how all the people who chant their anti-U.S. imperialism slogans live on land that was violently taken from others. I'm a conservative / christian that believes in the ideas of Darwinism and survival of the fittest (interpreted loosely).

People can't imagine us invading Mexico or Canada now...but what's so different than taking the SW states from Mexico not that long ago (relatively). Answer: Pansy-*** P.C. liberal thinking, teaching, and brainwashing.

I'm one of those people that believes the U.S. needs to do everything in it's power to maintain it's position as the number 1 super power (why? because I live in this country and I love it) even if that means securing oil interests in the M.E. to prevent China (who's already killing us in other resources i.e. steel) from taking over the position as #1. (Ironic that I'm ethnically Chinese.)

But you know what's going to hurt us even more? Kyoto Protocol.

Anyway, sorry for the political rant. It's my opinion, some may agree, most probably won't.

11Z50
03-17-2006, 10:00 PM
In the current mess we are in, if somebody has the balls to step up, gets trained, and is accepted in his unit as a warrior, I could give a shizz less what he did before. You see, in the Infantry things are a little different. In the course of my 20 years as a grunt, I knew several guys that came in as bangers, surfers, rednecks, or whatever else, but left as men of honor. Most of you here have no clue. And that's the way it should be. Those of you that have been there know what I'm talking about.

If a banger gets thru MEPS, and all the other hoops, and training, and gets deployed, I would have confidence in him. When he gets home, if he screws up, Oh, well..... It's been happening like that for hundreds of years. Besides that, who knows? Maybe he 'aint a banger no more!

The big question is does somebody that lacks the balls to serve have any standing to question those who do?

CowtownBallin
03-17-2006, 10:09 PM
Of course they do, they pay their bills.
A lot of guys I know who were in the military are great guys, men of great character..but then there's a large proportion of those who just got pushed into it because they a) have nothing else going for them, and b) don't know any better. So, am I supposed to feel inferior just because I don't have stripes on my sleeve? I don't think so. I do have respect for those who serve, but just because I've got other stuff to do doesn't disqualify me from talking. That would be un-American

shecky
03-17-2006, 10:14 PM
The big question is does somebody that lacks the balls to serve have any standing to question those who do?


Sure. Who is that soldier working for, anyway?

11Z50
03-17-2006, 10:21 PM
Well, when you fellows get your ticket punched, you can have a beer with me and talk about it. Otherwise, call your congressperson and snivel. The soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines don't work for you, they protect you. As for your elitist attiudes, I don't care to hear it. Leave the warriors alone.

CowtownBallin
03-17-2006, 10:37 PM
Yeah, well, my freedom of speech isn't being infringed by Iraqis, it's being torn apart by local powers that be, but our protectors are overseas...good thing we still got guns!

It may be an unpopular opinion, but it's an opinion, you're free to disregard it. Some join for the signing bonus, some for the stable pay, some for the travel prospects, some for the Montgomery GI Bill, some want to kill, some want to run away from domestic problems, and a good number loves this country and want to protect its people, not necessarily its government. I'm led to believe that this last group is not the gang-related one.

11Z50
03-17-2006, 11:37 PM
This may be over your head a little, since I would guess by your grammar you are a new American, but consider this:

1) Soldiers also pay taxes. So I guess they pay their own wages. You don't pay them anything.

2) This country has fought alot of wars, and shed alot of blood to free people who could care less. Most then moved here to make a buck and live the good life. Now they consider themselves experts on democracy. They tend to forget how they got here in the first place.

3) There are families in this country who have served their country in every generation since they got here, in some cases for over 200 years.

4) If this place sux so bad you can always go to another place you like better.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but so am I. I have earned the rights that you enjoy free of charge. Enjoy.

jdberger
03-18-2006, 12:18 AM
Of course they do, they pay their bills.
A lot of guys I know who were in the military are great guys, men of great character..but then there's a large proportion of those who just got pushed into it because they a) have nothing else going for them, and b) don't know any better. So, am I supposed to feel inferior just because I don't have stripes on my sleeve? I don't think so. I do have respect for those who serve, but just because I've got other stuff to do doesn't disqualify me from talking. That would be un-AmericanGiven the above comment, I get the impression that you think that our soldier, sailors and airmen were duped
into enlisting - too ignorant and stupid to know better. That they are some kind of victims. Am I reading this right?

artherd
03-18-2006, 3:17 AM
In the current mess we are in, if somebody has the balls to step up, gets trained, and is accepted in his unit as a warrior, I could give a shizz less what he did before. You see, in the Infantry things are a little different. In the course of my 20 years as a grunt, I knew several guys that came in as bangers, surfers, rednecks, or whatever else, but left as men of honor. Most of you here have no clue. And that's the way it should be. Those of you that have been there know what I'm talking about.
Excellent point. Sometimes the rigid structure of service is exactly (often all) these people were lacking in order to become good&productive members of a society.

Bottom line, the military has cleaned-up a THOUSAND of these bad apples for every one it spits back out onto the rotten-pile.

The big question is does somebody that lacks the balls to serve have any standing to question those who do?
Now that's assinine, almost as assinine as suggesting recruiters actively seek out gang members!

artherd
03-18-2006, 3:17 AM
People can't imagine us invading Mexico or Canada now...but what's so different than taking the SW states from Mexico not that long ago (relatively). Answer: Pansy-*** P.C. liberal thinking, teaching, and brainwashing.
Fuk it, I've got a Barrett, and I've seen BOTH the canadian RAF planes... Let's go get drunk and roll Canada!

artherd
03-18-2006, 3:18 AM
Given the above comment, I get the impression that you think that our soldier, sailors and airmen were duped
into enlisting - too ignorant and stupid to know better. That they are some kind of victims. Am I reading this right?
Face it, most are not, but a few were.

CowtownBallin
03-18-2006, 7:57 AM
4) If this place sux so bad you can always go to another place you like better.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but so am I. I have earned the rights that you enjoy free of charge. Enjoy.

Now you can take that attitude and toss it right out the window. America sucks a little, but it's got potential. I'd rather stick around and help things get moving in the right direction than run away to somewhere else. Telling someone that they should leave because they disagree is a tired argument, I suggest you get a new one.

And the great thing about America is that the citizens have those rights and don't have to earn it. Have you watched Starship Troopers yet?

dwtt
03-18-2006, 8:52 AM
And the great thing about America is that the citizens have those rights and don't have to earn it. Have you watched Starship Troopers yet?
I don't know about Starship Troopers, but you are wrong about Americans having rights without having to earn them. The few who join our military earn it for all of us, some giving their lives. Don't think it's free.

CowtownBallin
03-18-2006, 9:47 AM
Like I said earlier, Marines dying in Iraq isn't helping my freedoms any. Yes, freedom isn't free, SOMEONE has to pay, and more often than not it's the people in uniform, but my point is that the average person doesn't have to earn their citizenship or their rights.

And I'm pro compulsory military service of 1-2 years for all men between 18 and 45. Yay!

ohsmily
03-18-2006, 10:08 AM
Like I said earlier, Marines dying in Iraq isn't helping my freedoms any.

That is an opinion, and a poorly researched one at that. Study middle east politics a little. I don't have the inclination to get into it with you b/c you are clearly one of those who is against the war; win, lose or draw. But trust me, we aren't involved over there for f***ing FUN. People who are alot smarter than you who understand global (and middle east) dynamics and our economic interests in the region have decided that it is worth it for the betterment of our nation. You may not see it now, but you are shortsighted and pessimistic...

So, yes, you have an opinion, and it is wrong and naive.

spaceCADETzoom
03-18-2006, 4:13 PM
Like I said earlier, Marines dying in Iraq isn't helping my freedoms any.
Been shot at by an AK lately? California have any terrorist road side bombs go off recently? Not having such distractions is certainly helping your freedom to be "ballin" in "cowtown." I bet we can point out some folks in Iraq (both deployed Americans and actual Iraq civilians) that have a very different life than you. But...I guess us Soldiers aren't earning anything...

You mentioned watching Starship Troopers. Better question posed to you: have you READ Heinlein's Starship Trooopers? If you've formed your opinions off of a Verhoven movie, there's no hope...maybe you should have picked Basic Instinct. :)

CowtownBallin
03-18-2006, 4:43 PM
Did Iraq have shootings in the street or terrorist roadside bombs before 2003? Something to think about.

I'm from former Yugoslavia, I appreciate a good, well-fought war. But several things have to be in place before I can get excited about it. An invasion has to be justified, an intervention has to be justified, and defense should be automatic.

I kinda wish Yugoslavia had large oil reserves, then maybe not as many people would have died. Sucks for me, I guess.

As for Heinlein, I liked his earlier anti-authoritarian, libertarian POV...whereas ST took a different tone. I've read ST, but in small bits and pieces, and you really lose a lot of the message when you read for seven minutes and put it down. Maybe after college I'll have time to get into serious reading again.

ohsmily
03-18-2006, 4:59 PM
An invasion has to be justified

How about, attempted genocide by Hussein on the Kurds...ties to terrorism, including massive funding to the families of suicide bombers to support and subsidize those acts, threats of using WMD's (which he claims he had all along until we invaded and probably did have before they were hidden or exported) and last but definitely not least, oil interests.

an intervention has to be justified

WTF? for all intents and purposes, the same thing as above. Explain the difference between intervention and invasion in this case? I suppose the lack of a government and infrastructure would be a reason for "intervention" after we invaded.

and defense should be automatic.

WTF does this mean? defense should be automatic? Defense of what? the invading troops? the United States' borders?...you don't make any sense or are unclear at best.

Did Iraq have shootings in the street or terrorist roadside bombs before 2003? Something to think about.

No, they had a totalitarian dictatorship that ordered the torture (real torture, not fraternity hazing type crap), rape, and murder of citizens who spoke against the government or who were otherwise in noncompliance. If your response is "so what", the same could be said about those who were massacred in your former Yugoslavia. There was also constant war in the north with the Kurds along with acts of war by the Kurds against the Baathists throughout Iraq.

I take it you go to UC Davis (or perhaps some podunk community college) and I have a feeling you are NOT a poli sci major. If you are, then read more and sit on Cal Guns less.

And the last part of your post seems to defend our actions in Iraq..."if Yugo had more oil, maybe less people would have died." This means that it was good we went and saved the lives of many Iraqis even if it was for oil in your opinion.

mow
03-18-2006, 5:24 PM
How about WMD? How about imminent threat?:D :p

spaceCADETzoom
03-18-2006, 7:26 PM
As for Heinlein, I liked his earlier anti-authoritarian, libertarian POV...whereas ST took a different tone. I've read ST, but in small bits and pieces, and you really lose a lot of the message when you read for seven minutes and put it down. Maybe after college I'll have time to get into serious reading again.


Sorry, you're wrong here. Starship Troopers WAS his earlier work..it was written will before Stranger and Moon/Harsh Mistress, etc. He didn't change his views, ST was still very liberal. It's only people like you (and Verhoven) that see something "military" and off handedly relegate it into something fascist (if you actually read the book it is clearly the very opposite).

spaceCADETzoom
03-18-2006, 7:31 PM
Did Iraq have shootings in the street or terrorist roadside bombs before 2003? Something to think about.

That was my point. Davis ain't bombed. NYC isn't bombed. Baghdad is. American troops are taking the brunt of it...not you. It's a shame that Iraqis are taking it too... there's no consolation in my words for them. Terrbible, yes. But you complaining about things going on over there doesn't secure you anything, is like having someone take food away from a starving bum to feed you and you complaining that the food isn't warm enough for you. Go cry on your safe and sound bed...WHile soldiers are fighting the terrorists far,far away from you (yes, there are terrorists in Iraq, case you haven't heard) .

I'm not talking about WMD or Saddam or anyother justification of invasions, like others have posted. Such criticisms of US foreign policy can be valid (whether or not one agrees is irrelevent). I'm talking about you being safe and sound and complaining about Soldiers are not securing your freedom. That's BS.

I kinda wish Yugoslavia had large oil reserves, then maybe not as many people would have died. Sucks for me, I guess.
Nope. How would invading Yugoslavia have been in our best interest? Iraq is (or the designers of the invasion believe it is anyway). You, I, or joe on the street may think Rummy and Rove are wrong, but no one in their right mind think supporters of US policy on Iraq are doing what they're doing for the interest of anyone outside of the US. Sane people either see Iraq policy is right, or the Iraq policy is miscalculated. No credible intellectual I can name thinks the Iraq policy is for nefarious reasons.

I hope you arn't one of those "oil for blood" wackos. Theory doesn't hold. I really have no problem with being against the war. I can accept criticsm regarding false pretense, costly effort, etc. But you reek of knee-jerk protest...you're throwing around silly ideas like this. last I checked, my gas prices suck. Bloody Iraq sure ain't helping out in this regard.

m1371
03-18-2006, 8:11 PM
M1371, I think you should calm down. 461 said he was former military, not necessarily a devil dog. Things are a lot different in the other services and they might see things differently. When was the last time you saw an Air Force airman hump a 50lb pack, with deuce gear, kevlar, carry an M16 and live in the field for a week? To many members of the other services, an infantryman might look like a dirty barbarian.

I take offense when someone blatently paints all servicemembers with the same tarred brush.

The comment 461 made was dumb. The military does not active recruit gangmembers. Interestingly enough, it seems that I am not the only person who has commented that it was an "asinine" remark he made. Hmmmmm.....

And your response is uneducated.

Things may be different in the other services than the Marines, but recruiting standards are not set by the individual services. The Department of Defense sets the standards for enlistment. Each branch is allowed to tighten up the standards to their liking (with DoD approval) but they may not lower the standards below what DoD has set.

For example:


TITLE: DoD Instruction 1304.26, "Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction," 9/20/2005

SUMMARY: This Instruction: (a) reissues DoD Directive 1304.26, December 21, 1993 (hereby canceled) as a DoD Instruction according to the guidance in Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, "DoD Directives Review Phase II," July 13, 2005. (b) updates policies and responsibilities for basic entrance qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, and induction into the Armed Forces in accordance with Sections 504, 505, 520, 532, 654, 3253, 8253, 12102, 12201 of title 10, United States Code and delegates the authority to specify certain standards to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. (c) establishes the age, citizenship, education, aptitude, physical fitness, dependency status, moral character, and other disqualifying conditions that are causes for rejection from military service. Other standards may be prescribed in the event of mobilization or national emergency. (d) sets standards designed to ensure that individuals under consideration for enlistment, appointment, and/or induction are able to perform military duties successfully, and to select those who are the most trainable and adaptable to Military Service life.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/i130426_092005/i130426p.pdf

Each branch is allowed to set further criteria for enlistment based upon the DoD issued guidelines.

If you REALLY want to read the personnel procurement manuals for the Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force let me know and I'll track them down for you.

I stand by my statement that the military is not actively recruiting gangmembers. There is no policy in effect to support that comment which was made.

Is there a recruiter who may be dirty and going for an easy score? Yes.

Are there checks and balances to prevent "less than desirable applicants" from enlisting in the military. Yes.

Are the gangs actively trying to get people into the military? YES.

Do some of them slip through the cracks in the system? Yes.

Do they eventually get caught after they've made it past the enlistment process? Most do, but no system is perfect.

As for the remark about the last time I saw an Airman hump a 50lb pack, it's been a few years. Ever realize that the AF has their own security forces? Those guys are armed just like regular infantry. Are they on par with Marine infantry or Army SF? As a Marine, I'd say "NO" in response to that question but not with the intent of belittling the AF guys.

Look at the composition of the Army SF units who were running around in A'stan back in 2001-2002. There were AF combat controllers right there on the ground next to the Army guys, keeping up with them day in and day out.

I'd say that you need to get spun up a bit better on the military before you start making comments you are not qualified to make. :rolleyes:

CowtownBallin
03-18-2006, 9:37 PM
That was my point. Davis ain't bombed. NYC isn't bombed. Baghdad is. American troops are taking the brunt of it...not you.....
I hope you arn't one of those "oil for blood" wackos. .....last I checked, my gas prices suck.

I separated different comments in your post with ellipses so I can answer them all in one post without tedious copying/pasting.

First: Bahdad wasn't being bombed by terrorists prior to the 2003 invasion. Any guesses as to why? Maybe all the terrorists are set to explode after 2003.

Second: American troops ARE taking the brunt of it, and I'm not. And I really wish they didn't have to. I wish they could be at home, watching their kids take their first steps, teaching their children how to ride a bike, etc. but they have a tough job that doesn't let them do that as much as they'd like.

Third: If we had an active draft, I would be one of those "no blood for oil" wackos. When you take people, force them to fight, and then use them for your political/financial gain, I'm against that. But we have an all-volunteer service, so that's not such a big problem.

I did however watch several episodes of that documentary on becoming a US Marine. Half the kids in there (and they were kids) were crying about how it's hard, how they didn't know it would be like this, how they felt cheated, etc.
I remember how much pressure was put on me during and after high school. I had the Navy calling about nuclear engineering, I had the AF calling about being this and that, the Army wanted to put me in the artillery, etc etc. I don't like people telling me what to do, and wasn't seriously considering service (even as an officer..ROTC,OCS,OTS,etc) but the financial aspect of 0 college debt, a paycheck, guaranteed job placement, and (what I really wanted) WINGS was very inviting. So that goes back to my previous statement about selective recruiting. If I, an upper-middle class white kid from suburbia, is drawn to tales of adventure, prospects of glory and honor, financial stability (the government doesn't bounce checks), imagine how powerful white lies sound to an inner city kid with few opportunities outside of armed robbery and Denny's.

Fourth: Your gas prices are not as high as European gas prices, but they also have a great public transit system...everywhere. Helps being compact, huh. But Iraq is not a short-term oil strategy, it's very much a long-term strategy, which is why we're not leaving anytime soon. That doesn't suck for you or me so much, it sucks for the guy who signed up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year and is stuck over there for months at a time.

Don't mistake my comments for dislike or disrespect for the military. My father was a soldier. I have friends who are soldiers. Some historical figures I idolize were military men. It's all good, just finish your mission and come back alive :D

spaceCADETzoom
03-18-2006, 10:43 PM
I
First: Bahdad wasn't being bombed by terrorists prior to the 2003 invasion. Any guesses as to why? Maybe all the terrorists are set to explode after 2003.
dingdingding! Baghdad is being bombed. Not New York. Call Iraq the lightning rod, if you will...but that lightning is no longer striking anything else but that rod, yes? That lightning rod is Iraq and the US military (which you said is not securing your freedom) is holding that rod up, getting its hands burnt in the process. Lightning ain't striking you. That's the point. (You did allow the fact the US military takes the brunt of it...does that retract your comment on the US military "not doing anything to secure your freedom"?)

And as for your long tirade about evil recruiting practices and desprate enlistees. Geez, is there an original thought anywhere in there? You've seen a documentary, huh? great. And somehow only you, the strongest willed person in the world, was able to avoid the grasp of evil recruiters huh? Get off your high horse. Every serviceman had the same exact ability to hang up on recruiters as you did. Quit feeling sorry for us. Do we not like getting deployed? Do enlistees find basic training hard and unexpectedly difficult? Is being in the service tough at times? YESYESYES. Do we sometimes not like it? Some do more than others. But again, apparently only you are strong enough a person to not enlist and everyone else is just weak or has no otehr options, huh? Only folks escaping poverty would get suckered huh?

You're not special. Plenty of people from lower income strata than you hang up on recruiters everyday. Plenty of people with educations better than yours, from schools better than yours, with money more than you, are volunteering as well. Each and everyone has a choice. And each and everyone range from having regret to joy in their decisions...and such feelings are not constant.

CowtownBallin
03-18-2006, 11:36 PM
Yeah, I know, I've read hoo-ah.net. I'm not going to keep posting because a) it's getting tired, and b) I agree with some of the things that were said.

And I didn't make any blanket statements such as "only folks escaping poverty" and "everyone else is weak" and "only [I] am strong enough." I used words like "some." There are no absolutes :D

And as for the documentary, it was on the military channel, or is that a left-wing establishment, too now? It just further reinforced everything I've been told by current members of the armed forces, like, all the promises the recruiter makes, get them in writing, etc. I did state some things awkwardly, they made sense in my head, but didn't come off right in writing. I guess I pulled a GWB. Let's call it a day, shall we? :)

jdberger
03-18-2006, 11:43 PM
I did however watch several episodes of that documentary on becoming a US Marine. Half the kids in there (and they were kids) were crying about how it's hard, how they didn't know it would be like this, how they felt cheated, etc.
Yeah, when I went through we had a few boys callin out for their mommies, too. Funny, though. When you spent a little time with them you began to realize that these guys always were whining about something. It was never their fault that they couldn't shine their boots, or make their bed, or complete a run or whatever...But there was always an excuse...

Maybe these were the recruits that CowtownBallin thinks were "duped" or "too stupid" to know better before joining up.

The victims...

spaceCADETzoom
03-19-2006, 12:00 AM
Yeah, I know, I've read hoo-ah.net. I'm not going to keep posting because a) it's getting tired, and b) I agree with some of the things that were said.

And I didn't make any blanket statements such as "only folks escaping poverty" and "everyone else is weak" and "only [I] am strong enough." I used words like "some." There are no absolutes :D

And as for the documentary, it was on the military channel, or is that a left-wing establishment, too now? It just further reinforced everything I've been told by current members of the armed forces, like, all the promises the recruiter makes, get them in writing, etc. I did state some things awkwardly, they made sense in my head, but didn't come off right in writing. I guess I pulled a GWB. Let's call it a day, shall we? :)
Fair enough, cowtown.

I will say, though, you make a lot of assumptions, which, I believe, is what got you "in trouble" on this thread to begin with. One example among others, where did you get the idea I'd label the milchannel as "left wing" (implying I'm "right wing"--I'm not)? Hooah.net, or "making a marine" on the military channel, or getting a phone call from a recruiter are not solid sources of experience, wouldn't you agree? (ditto watching Starship Troopers when talking about Heinlein) :)

I never had a contention with your politics (as some may have here). I just chimed in when you made the comment on the military "isn't securing your freedom" by being in Iraq. Anyway, have a good one.

spaceCADETzoom
03-19-2006, 12:04 AM
heh. I just put up hooah.net on the browser, as i was curious and didn't know what it was. Please, please, please, cowtown, if you're interested in what the average Soldier, Marine, Airman, Sailor or Coast Guardsman does, disregard anythign on hooah.net as any semblance of reality regarding military life. That site is more like soldier of fortune magazine :)

grammaton76
03-19-2006, 12:06 AM
disregard anythign on hooah.net as any semblance of reality regarding military life. That site is more like soldier of fortune magazine :)

So, you're telling us that it should be named hooey.net? :)

DISCLAIMER: Never been there, don't feel like looking at it.

mow
03-19-2006, 12:13 AM
I fail to see how my freedoms or any other US citizens freedoms are being tended to as a result of the military engagement in Iraq.

I do see how iraqi freedom is being secured, but really I fail to see how that affects our freedoms domestically. Can someone please enlighten me?

spaceCADETzoom
03-19-2006, 12:13 AM
:) hooey.net.

I don't want anyone to jump on me and tell me the writer of that site is "the real deal." I just want to point out, a lot of the writers for SOF magazine were "real" Rangers, etc, too...doesn't change the idea I find it all tastelessly macho and uncharacteristic of the day-to-day of the military (even in a Ranger BN). Looking for explosions, go buy a nonfiction book (even Black Hawk Down)...it just seems hooah.net, like SOF magazine, is rather...self conscious of its...umm...hooah-ness. :)

disclaimer: I am not a Ranger, and am a simple reservist...a dirty leg at that.

spaceCADETzoom
03-19-2006, 12:17 AM
I fail to see how my freedoms or any other US citizens freedoms are being tended to as a result of the military engagement in Iraq.

I do see how iraqi freedom is being secured, but really I fail to see how that affects our freedoms domestically. Can someone please enlighten me?
been talked about above. Short answer: the terrorist networks are busy trying to overthrow evil American imperialism over there...rather than blowing stuff up over here. Long term goals of Rummy, Wolfie & Company: relatively stable, relatively nonaggressive mideast. Think they miscalculated? That's ok. A lot think so too. Just please don't tell me the US military doesn't do anything for you.

CowtownBallin
03-19-2006, 12:19 AM
Have you read some of the diary entries? The little intro is supposed to be catchy and is fictional, but the diary seems pretty real. They need to upload more storied, they've had Arriving at Fort Benning for about a year and a half now.

CowtownBallin
03-19-2006, 12:21 AM
been talked about above. Short answer: the terrorist networks are busy trying to overthrow evil American imperialism over there...rather than blowing stuff up over here. Don't agree? That's ok. Just please don't tell me the US military doesn't do anything for you.

So, we need a constant state of war abroad in order to keep terrorists busy over there and not over here, and to also keep people on our soil in check. Where have I heard this before. Ah yes, I believe Orville touched on it in his book, you may have heard of it, 1984? :D

spaceCADETzoom
03-19-2006, 12:31 AM
So, we need a constant state of war abroad in order to keep terrorists busy over there and not over here, and to also keep people on our soil in check. Where have I heard this before. Ah yes, I believe Orville touched on it in his book, you may have heard of it, 1984? :D
Hey, i thought you threw in the towel...at least for tonight? :)

To answer you, no. Again, the rummy & co had a plan. And the plan was to stabilize the mideast. It's a very long term one. The idea that terrorists are held up there right now is merely the short term. End result (decades away) is supposedly a mideast which has less homes for such networks to exist. Again, you think its not worth it? A miscalculation? fine. But it's not exactly a nefarious conspiracy against US security. And the military is doing its job.

And where did keep us "in check" come from? I'm talking about foreign policy here. No one mentioned domestic policy. GWOT was a response to something real, not fabricated. and at the end of the day, the stated and explicit end goal is a relatively nonaggressive mideast. hence, no dreaded ongoing and expanding war with a faceless "eurasia," but a transformed mideast with no shelter for the terrorists. If you want to level evil machinations here...it's the whole McWorld/imperialist/etc thing..... yawn. or maybe inept bureaucrat planning from the administration. whatever. But a military not doing anything for you? BS.

jdberger
03-19-2006, 12:43 AM
So, we need a constant state of war abroad in order to keep terrorists busy over there and not over here, and to also keep people on our soil in check. Where have I heard this before. Ah yes, I believe Orville touched on it in his book, you may have heard of it, 1984? :DOrwell. George Orwell.

CowtownBallin
03-19-2006, 1:30 AM
Orwell. George Orwell.

Sorry, I was kinda jonesin' for some popcorn

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0004M12HY.01-A3CDPEGSIQM61V._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


*sigh* I can't sleep. Gonna go browse gunbroker and spend money I don't have hahaha

mow
03-19-2006, 2:06 AM
been talked about above. Short answer: the terrorist networks are busy trying to overthrow evil American imperialism over there...rather than blowing stuff up over here. Long term goals of Rummy, Wolfie & Company: relatively stable, relatively nonaggressive mideast. Think they miscalculated? That's ok. A lot think so too. Just please don't tell me the US military doesn't do anything for you.

Never said the military doesn't do anything for me. I just do not believe that I/we am/are any safer here in the US now than I/we was/were pre-invasion in Iraq.

That is an interesting idea, regarding keeping the terrorist networks busy over there, rather than blowing stuff up over here. Do you believe that we will not have another domestic incident until we are out of Iraq? Or just that we are less likely to be attacked domestically during operation Iraqi Freedom? I would like to see information supporting that idea, please let me know if you know of any resources.

There were 8 years between the first ('93) and final attack ('01) on the WTC. Isn't it reasonable to draw the conclusion that there are plots for domestic attacks being worked out right now by terrorist networks?

ohsmily
03-19-2006, 4:37 PM
So, we need a constant state of war abroad in order to keep terrorists busy over there and not over here, and to also keep people on our soil in check. Where have I heard this before. Ah yes, I believe Orville touched on it in his book, you may have heard of it, 1984? :D

Orville? HAHAHAHA? Did Orville write a different version of Orwell's 1984?? Failed attempt at posturing as a smug intellectual.

grammaton76
03-19-2006, 4:58 PM
Orville? HAHAHAHA? Did Orville write a different version of Orwell's 1984?? Failed attempt at posturing as a smug intellectual.

No, Orville Redenbacher also wrote a book titled "1984", but it was pertaining to the number of popcorn kernels he wanted to see popped out of any batch of 2000...

(sarcasm)

DSA_FAL
03-19-2006, 6:05 PM
Gentlemen, what we are seeing here is a clash of civilizations. I think our western culture and their Islamic culture are just too different to coexist. An example of that is Europe. They have tried to integrate vast numbers of Muslims into their societies and have failed miserably. The London and Madrid bombings, the French riots and Theo Van Gogh murder are just examples of how the Muslim populations are confronting the lax, liberal European culture that is diametrically opposed to theirs.

I think the mistake that Bush & Co. made was the thinking that WWII Europe was the model for a post-war occupation. The difference being is that was an intracultural conflict. The Germans didn't think we came there to convert them to Christianity or are occupying their holy lands.

The Militant Muslims there consider this to be a continuation of the Crusades. They have a thousand year world-view. We don't even remember five years ago. This is an important advantage that they have. They have openly stated that they intend to conquer Europe through immigration and high birth rates as the Europeans slowly die off due to an unsustainable birthrate.

The Crusades were not so much a series of wars of aggression but rather a reaction to the fact that Muslims had succeeded in conquering North Africa, The Balkans, Southern Spain and the Eastern Mediterranean; all formerly Christian regions before Muslim conquest.

Make no mistake as to their goals. They want an all Muslim world and will use any means necessary to achieve this. We need to look back at what they did during their early years of expansion. The forced conversions and violent slaughters of recalcitrant infidels is their modus operandi whenever they come into the position of being militarily superior to their foes.

This is why we must not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons and why it was worthwhile to remove the Hussein regime when we believed they had weapons of mass destruction. Now, some of you may say that Hussein wasn't a theocrat. True, however, he did collaborate with Palestinian Islamist terrorist groups. Make no mistake, the anti-American/Israeli terrorist groups are a small community and they will and do collaborate when it suits their mutual interests. If Iran acquires The Bomb, they will share it with terrorists who will target the U.S. We couldn't take that risk of transfer of WMDs from Iraq either.

What Iraq is doing is distracting the terrorists from planning actions in the U.S. The Al Quaeda number two himself said that Iraq was their central front. That is certainly better than San Diego or Los Angeles. The main innovation of the Bush Doctrine in terms of Political Science is that we finally are acting proactively to prevent home-front violence and not reacting to it like during the Clinton Administration. We should continue this approach with Iran and not be distracted by particulars of how best to democratize them. I'm not entirely convinced that they want or should have democracy. I fear that if we push democracy throughout the region, we will only see repeats of the last Palestinian election, i.e. the Islamist parties winning. The best way to fight our long term struggle with Militant Islam is two fold; one being supporting authoritarians who are willing to sell out their own people for our money and will pacify their own people; two being taking out antagonistic regimes and replacing them sympathetic ones. This isn't a pretty solution but reality isn't pretty.

shecky
03-19-2006, 9:36 PM
What Iraq is doing is distracting the terrorists from planning actions in the U.S. The Al Quaeda number two himself said that Iraq was their central front.

Or inspiring more to join. America's example in the region has been horrendous. Winning hearts and minds is difficult with Abu Graib and Guantanamo tactics are revealed, and chaos reigns supreme in much of Iraq.

The Al Quaeda number two himself said that Iraq was their central front.

Not too surprising since it is in the Middle East, after all.

The best way to fight our long term struggle with Militant Islam is two fold; one being supporting authoritarians who are willing to sell out their own people for our money and will pacify their own people;

The best guy fitting this description we are putting on trial right now.

two being taking out antagonistic regimes and replacing them sympathetic ones.

We've been there and done that, and it has continually bitten us in the *****. The authoritarians we usually put into place won't be of much help if they are hated by the masses. They usually are hated because authoritarians are typically just thugs.

This line of thinking is demonic. It declares that America can't preserve it's way of life unless other regions of the world are basically enslaved under tyranny. American-sponsored tyranny.

To the extent that it is true is a bitter pill for many to swallow, because so many Americans view themselves as the good guys. This Chomsky-esque view rubs some folks quite the wrong way, because the terrorists increasingly look like the people we see in the mirror.