That's what everyone said when Hitler annexed Austria in 1938.That is not what is going to happen.
"Oh, he's just uniting the German people. No big deal."
That's what everyone said when Hitler annexed Austria in 1938.That is not what is going to happen.
...except there are a lot more people that are against what is going on. And to many people pointing out the obvious to the lower enlisted and everythijf.That's what everyone said when Hitler annexed Austria in 1938.
"Oh, he's just uniting the German people. No big deal."
This is wrong or mischaracterized. I just read the document. First, it notes antifa and the occupy movement as extremist too, and the occupy movement is generally, supposed to be, non violent, so I don't see anything biased about the stupidity here. Second, the characteristics of Patriot terrorists isn't just that they believe America is corrupt, but also that they believe laws don't apply to them (they list sovereign citizens as an example as well).Of interest on this topic, here is a DARPA document reported on by Politico about "extremism" in the military. Of note is that there definition of Patriot "Extremism" includes anyone who thinks "the US government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional boundaries or is no longer capable of protecting the people against foreign threats," including Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. Their definition of Christian "Extremism" includes Christians who oppose abortion, gay marriage or transgenderism.
That is true (as with all religions in general), but it tends to gravitate towards violence and chaos, like all things.
It's the same for all religions though.
Crusades by the Christians, European wars of religion, Spanish Inquisition, Rohingya genocide, etc.
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."No.Crusades was reclaiming christian land taken by muslims,protestants started war become they rellied on Old Testament where all enemies must be destroyed,and Spanish Inquisition killed less then 10.000 people in 300 years.
Soviets killed more in one week.
True.When Islam has prophet who waged wars and enslaved people.And later sold those slaves.Thta is why there is practically no anti-slavery movement among muslims - becouse their prophet did so.
In other worlds,for muslims both conqer and slavery are basically good.For christians or buddhists - not so.
I mean that’s not really a fair statement what about Jews? They also had prophets that did genocide and ordered rape and slavery in the Old Testament. They also don’t have a New Testament like Christians where they can say parts of it no longer apply.No.Crusades was reclaiming christian land taken by muslims,protestants started war become they rellied on Old Testament where all enemies must be destroyed,and Spanish Inquisition killed less then 10.000 people in 300 years.
Soviets killed more in one week.
When Islam has prophet who waged wars and enslaved people.And later sold those slaves.Thta is why there is practically no anti-slavery movement among muslims - becouse their prophet did so.
In other worlds,for muslims both conqer and slavery are basically good.For christians or buddhists - not so.
This is wrong or mischaracterized. I just read the document. First, it notes antifa and the occupy movement as extremist too, and the occupy movement is generally, supposed to be, non violent, so I don't see anything biased about the stupidity here. Second, the characteristics of Patriot terrorists isn't just that they believe America is corrupt, but also that they believe laws don't apply to them (they list sovereign citizens as an example as well).
As for the discussion about abortion and people who oppose abortion, that was only listed in targets of extremists, not whether having an opinion about it makes one a terrorist.
In conclusion, actually read the document, it's a 17 page power point, it's not hard.
Of interest on this topic, here is a DARPA document reported on by Politico about "extremism" in the military. Of note is that there definition of Patriot "Extremism" includes anyone who thinks "the US government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional boundaries or is no longer capable of protecting the people against foreign threats," including Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. Their definition of Christian "Extremism" includes Christians who oppose abortion, gay marriage or transgenderism.
This is wrong or mischaracterized. I just read the document. First, it notes antifa and the occupy movement as extremist too, and the occupy movement is generally, supposed to be, non violent, so I don't see anything biased about the stupidity here. Second, the characteristics of Patriot terrorists isn't just that they believe America is corrupt, but also that they believe laws don't apply to them (they list sovereign citizens as an example as well).
As for the discussion about abortion and people who oppose abortion, that was only listed in targets of extremists, not whether having an opinion about it makes one a terrorist.
In conclusion, actually read the document, it's a 17 page power point, it's not hard.
They don't, comrade. All they say is that religious extremists would probably target things their religion opposes, then it gives examples like lgbt stuff or abortion. That's it. That's the only time it mentions lgbt or abortion in the document.The only thing I find concerning is the inclusion of Christian extremism which characterizes opposition to abortion or LGBTQ issues as 'extremist' without specifying what is actually at issue.
The only thing I find concerning is the inclusion of Christian extremism which characterizes opposition to abortion or LGBTQ issues as 'extremist' without specifying what is actually at issue. Now, given that this on its face would include the Knights of Columbus as a hate group, my guess is that whoever wrote this up either has a beef against orthodox Catholics since we actually tend to be less flexible on serious religious issues as opposed to your average mainline Protestant, *or* they simply didn't fully consider the implications of what they wrote.
The rest of it states that it isn't just "belief that the government is corrupt or incompetent" but it's that belief COUPLED WITH actively opposing them by either forming one of those wacky militia groups or participating in the equally insane Sovereign Citizen movement.
They don't, comrade. All they say is that religious extremists would probably target things their religion opposes, then it gives examples like lgbt stuff or abortion. That's it. That's the only time it mentions lgbt or abortion in the document.
Look, you are way too focused on a completely innocent document. It doesn't even single out Christian extremism but lumps it in with all religious extremism, and just mentions that Christian extremists are also usually white supremacists. That's really the only sentence on them.Not to say this as a mark against Catholics, by any means, but evangelical Christians, who are competitive with mainline Protestants in numbers and IIRC probably actually outnumber them when it comes to actual church attendees have similar and frequently more conservative stances on these issues than Catholics, as a whole.
I also think you have a habit of giving more benefit of the doubt to the system than it is due. The document doesn't use the term "hate group" for anything, IIRC, but on this front I think it's worth noting that the system seems pretty comfortable outsourcing the definition of a "hate group" to the SPLC and ADL, and the SPLC is more than comfortable explicitly labeling the ADF a "hate group."
This isn't a accurate reading of the document, if anything the coupled requirement is "refusing to accept the government's authority to tax or govern them," although I think this is made a lie by the inclusion of some of the groups. Militia membership is something that they list as something "some" of them engage in, it's not phrased as a requirement.
I think you're assuming "target" here means "target for physical attack and/or violence." I think this is more ambiguous, potentially intentionally so.
Look, you are way too focused on a completely innocent document. It doesn't even single out Christian extremism but lumps it in with all religious extremism, and just mentions that Christian extremists are also usually white supremacists. That's really the only sentence on them.
If you want to show problems with politicizing the American military, please show evidence, cause this ain't it.
I mean that’s not really a fair statement what about Jews? They also had prophets that did genocide and ordered rape and slavery in the Old Testament. They also don’t have a New Testament like Christians where they can say parts of it no longer apply.
Not apply,becouse jews have that commands for conqering Kaanan only.Once they conqered Kanaan and made it Judea,they were no longer allowed to genocide anybody.
So,modern jews would not genocide.
Puritans like protestants could - puritans genocided indian in North America,becouse they considered themselves "New Israel" and America "New Kanaan".That is why in USA native indians was almost wiped out,when in South america population is mixed.Becouse Catholics never tried genocide anybody becouse of his colour,like protestants.
Sure,they could murder or enslave,but not genocide.
I think this is an overestimate of the influence of religion over group behavior and also a massive failure to understand the inner workings of other religions.
More Commissars for the military, sounds like a great way to enforce ideological principle of conformity!...
I approve!
COVID had hurt the full implementation of the ACFTDon’t worry so much, the Army’s unable to even enforce physical fitness standards due to a clusterfuck over PT testing as per Congressional mandate, so this is one of those things that will probably be on paper but not actually do anything because it’s completely unworkable in a dimension commonly known as “reality.”
There were more tubes than cannan that were ordered to be attacked. Also things like stoning for adultery haven’t been rescinded. A faithful Jew can’t say those laws don’t apply like Christians trying to weasel out of it. Do they not enforce it because they aren’t devout or because they don’t have a religious nation and are able to do that?Not apply,becouse jews have that commands for conqering Kaanan only.Once they conqered Kanaan and made it Judea,they were no longer allowed to genocide anybody.
So,modern jews would not genocide.
Puritans like protestants could - puritans genocided indian in North America,becouse they considered themselves "New Israel" and America "New Kanaan".That is why in USA native indians was almost wiped out,when in South america population is mixed.Becouse Catholics never tried genocide anybody becouse of his colour,like protestants.
Sure,they could murder or enslave,but not genocide.
There were specifically seven nations Israel was allowed to attack, all located in Canaan and each descended from Canaan himself according to the bible's detailed records of lineage. Even when attacked first, they weren't permitted to attack other nations outside their own borders, such as was the case with Edom and Assyria.There were more tubes than cannan that were ordered to be attacked
Actually they don't enforce it because to sentence someone to death the Sanhedrin has to meet at the Hall of Hewn Stones on the temple mount to deliberate first and ensure that the proceedings are legal. You can't just start flinging stones at somebody because an idiot on the street pointed and yelled "Adulterer!"Also things like stoning for adultery haven’t been rescinded. A faithful Jew can’t say those laws don’t apply like Christians trying to weasel out of it. Do they not enforce it because they aren’t devout or because they don’t have a religious nation and are able to do that?