1
   

Neo-Nazis, skinheads American infilitrating military

 
 
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 01:00 pm
Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts

By JOHN KIFNER
Published: July 7, 2006
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.

"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. "That's a problem."

A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.

The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.

The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote "The Turner Diaries," the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.

The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."

Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. "They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military," he said, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."

The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.

The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.

"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."

The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. "There are others among you in the forces," one participant wrote. "You are never alone."

An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.

The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."

"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "

He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,377 • Replies: 57
No top replies

 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 01:04 pm
http://data1.blog.de/blog/m/muddhas-place/img/bush_hitler_.jpg
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 01:14 pm
"President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 said that Hitler invented "preventive war". Ike dismissively said: "Frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing". "
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 08:43 pm
The US military is one of the most racially diverse organizations in the world....so even if this story has more than a kernel of truth, I can't think of too many other organizations that a racist should join. There's something about military comaraderie, eating, sleeping, living, dying in that environment. The unavoidable need in war to put your life into the hands of others, and to protect the lives of your fellow soldier whatever race he is. It's almost inevitable that, in such circumstances, a racist would have to find his beliefs challenged.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 05:50 am
What is funny is that if the military started targeting regular gangs and throwing the offenders out of the military the left would scream racism. They would say the military was just trying to remove blacks and latinos from serving in the military. That would be a story of a different type. I know for a fact that there are gang members in the military you see them in the open all the time. Gang signs are thrown and responded to often. To remove these people would be seen as racism and not removing a problem.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 05:52 am
Yes Baldimo that really is funny. I laughed out loud when I read it.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 05:55 am
dyslexia wrote:
Yes Baldimo that really is funny. I laughed out loud when I read it.


Care to respond or just throw cheap unless comments around?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 06:09 am
Baldimo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Yes Baldimo that really is funny. I laughed out loud when I read it.


Care to respond or just throw cheap unless comments around?

My above response is self-explanatory.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 06:15 am
dyslexia wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Yes Baldimo that really is funny. I laughed out loud when I read it.


Care to respond or just throw cheap unless comments around?

My above response is self-explanatory.


You don't think it is true? How many times has the immigration issue been called nothing but rasict? More time then can be counted that is for sure. The same can be said about the English only issue. When it effects minorities in any way the first card the left plays is the race card I will same they would play the same card if gangs were to be targeted.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 07:33 am
Baldimo, can you give any links or proof that there are hate groups gangs of Latinos and blacks in the military? If you can't then you are merely throwing a red herring into mix to distract from the subject.

The subject: because the war is unpopular the military is having trouble recruiting and so they have relaxed their long standing stance of not recruiting people that belong to known hate groups such as Aryan Nations.

This development might explain this rash of violence alleged to have been committed by Marines.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 07:58 am
revel wrote:
Baldimo, can you give any links or proof that there are hate groups gangs of Latinos and blacks in the military? If you can't then you are merely throwing a red herring into mix to distract from the subject.

The subject: because the war is unpopular the military is having trouble recruiting and so they have relaxed their long standing stance of not recruiting people that belong to known hate groups such as Aryan Nations.

This development might explain this rash of violence alleged to have been committed by Marines.


The reason I brought it up is because gang members are not allowed into the military. I have seen this in Afghanistan. I was wondering why this article and even the people who were quoted didn't see the need to investigate gangs as well as hate groups. I happen to see the groups in the same light because neither group does any good for any one. Why were the white groups targeted and not the minority groups? I think because it would be seen as racism to target minorities who joined.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 12:29 pm
Baldimo wrote:
revel wrote:
Baldimo, can you give any links or proof that there are hate groups gangs of Latinos and blacks in the military? If you can't then you are merely throwing a red herring into mix to distract from the subject.

The subject: because the war is unpopular the military is having trouble recruiting and so they have relaxed their long standing stance of not recruiting people that belong to known hate groups such as Aryan Nations.

This development might explain this rash of violence alleged to have been committed by Marines.


The reason I brought it up is because gang members are not allowed into the military. I have seen this in Afghanistan. I was wondering why this article and even the people who were quoted didn't see the need to investigate gangs as well as hate groups. I happen to see the groups in the same light because neither group does any good for any one. Why were the white groups targeted and not the minority groups? I think because it would be seen as racism to target minorities who joined.


I wouldn't know since I have never been in the military, some family members of mine have but I don't really remember any of them talking about that sort of thing.

I am not saying that you are not right, there could very well be gang members in the military, not all gang members are hate groups but some of them might be and there might be some in the military.

However, since we don't (as of yet) have any data or links or anything to go on about minority gang members in the military and all we have is the article which talks about the problem of the nazi groups, it seems to me that should be the topic of conversation in this particular thread. If someone can show something about the other kinds of groups then that is another story. (this is just my ten cents worth, you are of course free to talk about anything you want.)
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jul, 2006 02:54 am
I served in the Military. Baldimo is correct. If any "gang Members" were to be removed from the Military, the left wing press would scream bloody murder.
There may be some members in the Military who are former Gang Members as there would be in any large group of people from all walks of life but there is NO control of any part of the military by anyone but the officers. The Army is not civilian life. If they have a problem with what you are doing, you will end up in the brig pretty fast!!!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jul, 2006 11:47 am
At this rate, the military will soon allow gays to join ... then albinos. Pretty soon it'll be anarchy! Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jul, 2006 11:57 am
Baldimo wrote:
The reason I brought it up is because gang members are not allowed into the military. I have seen this in Afghanistan.


So, you saw recruiters for the United States armed forces in Afghanistan who refused to recruit gang members? Among the list of your silliest statements, that's a real corker. Just trying to introduce Aghanistan to attempt to establish your credentials in the discussion, i suspect.

Apart from it being hilariously silly to state that you "have seen this in Afghanistan," even if it were true, it would only constitute anecdotal evidence.

Quote:
I was wondering why this article and even the people who were quoted didn't see the need to investigate gangs as well as hate groups.


If you had actually read the article, you'd have seen that gang membership is mentioned again and again. As far as the Southern Poverty Law Center goes, it is one of the most respected anti-hate-group organizations in the nation.

Quote:
I happen to see the groups in the same light because neither group does any good for any one. Why were the white groups targeted and not the minority groups? I think because it would be seen as racism to target minorities who joined.


You "think?" I am always amused at that contention. Which "racist" black groups should they have looked for? The Black Panthers? The Symbionese Liberation Army? Could you tell us what organized non-white racist hate groups they ought to have been looking for?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jul, 2006 12:21 pm
Setanta wrote:
Apart from it being hilariously silly to state that you "have seen this in Afghanistan," even if it were true, it would only constitute anecdotal evidence.


Get off your high horse. Must you be reminded of the times you've relied on purely anecdotal evidence to try and prove a point? I can point you to a couple of posts where you tout your anectodal experience in the military to make a point, if you've forgotten.

Set wrote:
If you had actually read the article, ...


Hilarious! I can also point you to a post authored by you where you chastized me for assuming you had not read the thread, as you said, "although you have no certain knowledge of the matter." Yet, here you are doing the same thing to Baldimo that you complained about to me.



Coupled with your snotty tone, this post is a fine example of "Setanta being Setanta."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jul, 2006 12:36 pm
When it comes to a "snotty tone," one can certainly not fault your inherent expertise.

At no time have i ever suggested that my experience in the military made me an expert in recruiting issues, and the more so with regard to recruiting practices taking place in the United States while i was overseas.

But if you think you can prop up that strawman, have at it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jul, 2006 03:08 pm
Setanta wrote:
When it comes to a "snotty tone," one can certainly not fault your inherent expertise.


I've been taking notes, but I'll never rise to your level, Set.

Quote:
At no time have i ever suggested that my experience in the military made me an expert in recruiting issues, and the more so with regard to recruiting practices taking place in the United States while i was overseas.


Nor did Baldimo suggest his experience in the miltary made him an "expert in recruiting issues." All he did was provide some anectodal evidence to support his point.

But in any event, I refer you to this post you made on March 10th of this year where you relied upon anecdotal evidence as supporting your claim that "military recruiters have a greater incentive to dishonesty":

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1912888#1912888]On March 20, 2006, Setanta[/url] wrote:
Having enlisted in the Army, and on the basis of anecdotal evidence of that experience, and the experience of many other former members of the military with whom i have spoken over the years, it is painfully obvious that military recruiters have a greater incentive to dishonesty.


Clearly you believed your anecdotal evidence regarding the military was important and valuable back on March 10th. Have you changed your mind in the intervening 5 months?

And over a year ago you recited anecdotal evidence in support of your position that career military doctors were often incompetent and unethical, and good and competent career military doctors were the exception to the rule:

[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1416366#1416366]On June 25, 2005, Setanta[/url] wrote:
Having spent three years in the Army Medical Corps during a war, i was more than a little acquainted with doctors in the military. Those who were conscripted did their duty, did their level best to follow their principles, and got out as soon as they could consistent with honor and legality. Those who made a career of the military often, although not always, did so because they felt their opportunity to live well and prosper was as good in the military as in the world at large, which is a rather telling point about their own assessment of their skills and their prospects for profiting from those skills. I've seen career military doctors allow someone to die simply so as not to violate standing operating procedure. I've seen career military doctors prescribe narcotics to other officers in order to suck up. I've seen career military doctors give a clean bill of health to career non-commissioned officers and officers who were clearly alcoholic (occassionally to frequently incapacitated by alcohol while on duty), and at a time when the friendless among those NCOs and officers were being booted out of the military short of retirement because of drug or alcohol abuse. I saw a handful of good and highly competent doctors remain in the military beyond their orginal term because the felt they were needed and could do good--they were the exceptions which proved the rule that career military doctors stay in because they don't have a good shot on the outside.

Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but based upon a sample of literally hundreds of doctors with whom i came in contact, and under whose orders i served.


So what are you saying here, Set? Anecdotal evidence when provided by you is good, but when provided by anyone else it's deserving of your condescending sneer?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 02:56 am
Oh come on, Ticomaya. You know that Mr. Setanta is the most learned, most erudite poster on these threads. When he gives an anecdote, you know that it is backed by years of learning and other evidence. Have you not read any of his long screeds on History? Why, you will never ever find one single error or exaggeration in them.

I know that anecdotal evidence is not good evidence, Ticomaya.In fact, it is the worst kind of evidence. But there are exceptions. This is Mr. Setanta, after all!!!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 06:58 am
Next time, Bernard, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and correct the errors you perceive to be in Setanta's long history posts?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Neo-Nazis, skinheads American infilitrating military
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 05:29:16