Neo-Nazis, skinheads American infilitrating military

Ticomaya wrote:

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!

I believe one country gave bomb finding monkeys to the coalition.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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

You've been far beyond me since the day one.

Quote:

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.

No, he provided no anecdotal evidence. My remark was that if he had suggested that serving in Afghanistan gave him insight into recruiting practices, then his evidence were anecdotal. But he didn't make any such contention. He only said that he had "seen" that in Afghanistan. So i asked him what he had seen.

Quote:

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?

There is nothing in the post from which is reasonable to assert that i considered my evidence to be important and valuable. At all events, i noted that it were anecdotal. Baldimo hasn't even explained what it is that he "saw" in Afghanistan. My incredulity with regard to his comment is that he would "see" any evidence there which gave him insight into the recruiting practices going on in the United States while he was in Aghanistan. My comments were freely acknowledged in advance to be anecdotal evidence, and did not state or imply that i had special knowledge of recruiting practices being followed in the United States while i were overseas. You are using a strawman, and not the remarks which i made here, nor are the remarks you quote referential to Baldimo's account of what he "saw" while he was in Afghanistan.

Once again, if he has anecdotal evidence, it would help to have him tell us what the nature of the evidence is. Furthermore, he attempted to use an inferential statement to rebut the original article, and to imply that there was a one-sided racist motive in operation. Saying that he "saw" an unspecified something in Afghanistan is not a basis for the refutation of the contentions made in the article.

Finally, you are being more than a little disingenuous, because my remarks were made in a thread which intended to discuss recruitment policies. Once again, i announced that i was providing anecdotal evidence, which is an honesty Baldimo has not displayed.

Finally, you take the initial paragraph of the quote, and fail to take notice that i had presented logical arguments subsequently to support why i considered that anecdotal evidence to be valid. Baldimo has done no such thing.

Quote:

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:

Once again, i qualified my response with the logical basis upon which i had arrived at those conclusion, and freely acknowledged that the evidence is anecdotal.

Quote:

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?

If you intend to erect one of your trademark sneers, then certainly you have the tone for it.

If you don't know what i was saying, and need to ask, then i'm surprised at the length to which you went in the attempt to support your pathetic strawman.

The vague and uncertain remarks which Baldimo made seemed to have the character of attempting to provide some anecdotal evidence, but it's difficult to tell, because what he "saw" in Afghanistan is a non sequitur. He neither details what is was that he saw, nor does he provide a statement of any logic which lead him to any conclusion. Furthermore, a circumstance which applies to neither of my posts which you quoted, he is attempting to discredit the original article based upon the vague and unspecified reference to what he "saw" in Afghanistan. I found it hard, given the vague and irrelevant nature of the reference to what he "saw," to come to any other conclusion than that he claimed authority on the topic based upon what he "saw." But he is neither clear about what it was that he "saw," nor what meaning it has on the issue.

You are the one who chooses to characterize my post as a "condescending sneer." Rather, it was an expression of my hilarity at his feeble attempt to authorize a dismissal of the article, and to attempt to erect a strawman that "leftists" have a racist preference for gang members over white supremecists.

I hope i would never unwittingly have you acting as a lawyer for me, or anyone i know. All your rhetorical arsenal contains is sneers, mischaracterizations and stawmen.

0 Replies

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.

Here is Baldimo's post again. In response to a question of whether or not he can provide evidence that there were Latino or Black hate groups in the military, he states that gang members are not allowed into the military (which actually serves to refute a contention that there is a racist focus, unless one asserts that the racist focus is to allow white supremecists, but no members of any other hate group). He then states that he has seen this in Aghanistan. What the hell is that supposed to mean? What did he see? That no gang members are allowed into the military? What is it about service in Afghanistan which gives him special insight into recruiting practices?

He then states that only white groups were targeted. But, if as he says gang members are not allowed into the military, then there would be no non-white groups to "target." He then asserts (and in the context of a previous remark to the effect that "leftists" would holler about white supremecists, but not any other hate groups) that this is because it would be seen (by whom, he does not specify, so one is left to seek the context in other, preceding posts) as racist to "target" minorities--although he has already stipulated that gang members are not allowed into the military.

He not only does not establish the contention that only white groups are "targeted," he inferentially suggests that other groups are not present to be "targeted." Furthermore, he compares white supremacists to gang members--one can only assume that he asserts that all gang members are members of racist hate groups, and therefore comparable.

So, regardless of what he "saw" in Afghanistan, left undescribed, he provides the very evidence for why only white groups are "targeted"--by his testimony, the others are not present in the military to be targeted.

An hilariously confused and lagrely meaningless post on Baldimo's part. If he clarifies his anecdotal evidence, it will be easier to deal with. As for my posts which you quoted, none of them were intended to refute any published article, nor offered in proof of any contentions which i had previously made. Baldimo was specifically (and pathetically) responding for a request that he provide evidence for a contention.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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.

No, he provided no anecdotal evidence. My remark was that if he had suggested that serving in Afghanistan gave him insight into recruiting practices, then his evidence were anecdotal. But he didn't make any such contention. He only said that he had "seen" that in Afghanistan. So i asked him what he had seen.

Nonsense ... you said, "even if it were true, it would only constitute anecdotal evidence." You may have questioned the accuracy of his statement, but you very clearly described it -- if accurate -- as "anecdotal evidence." But the point isn't whether or not it was true or "anecdotal evidence." The point is you discounted his account because "if it were true, it would only constitute anecdotal evidence."

The remainder of your post, and the post immediately following it, is a weak attempt to spin, not worthy of comment .... except to point out the following:

Setanta wrote:

If he clarifies his anecdotal evidence, it will be easier to deal with.

You just said "he provided no anecdotal evidence." You can't even remain consistent in succeeding posts.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Nonsense ... you said, "even if it were true, it would only constitute anecdotal evidence." You may have questioned the accuracy of his statement, but you very clearly described it -- if accurate -- as "anecdotal evidence." But the point isn't whether or not it was true or "anecdotal evidence." The point is you discounted his account because "if it were true, it would only constitute anecdotal evidence."

Sinks in kind of slowly with you, huh? Revel asked a question about his evidence and followed it with a statement: 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. Therefore, an appeal to anecdotal evidence would not meet the burden of Revel's request. I know it's hard for you to understand these sorts of things, but do try to keep up, if only not to embarrass yourself.

Quote:

The remainder of your post, and the post immediately following it, is a weak attempt to spin, not worthy of comment .... except to point out the following:

Setanta wrote:
If he clarifies his anecdotal evidence, it will be easier to deal with.

You just said "he provided no anecdotal evidence." You can't even remain consistent in succeeding posts.

There is no spin--i just decribed the nature of your strawman. You quote me twice giving anecdotal evidence. In both cases, i acknowledged as much. In neither case was i responding to a request to provide links or proof of an assertion, as was the case with Revel's request to Baldimo. Others might not immediately see the nature of your attempt to erect the strawman, so i pointed it out.

Baldimo's reference to what he had seen in Afghanistan would constitute anecdotal evidence, if we had an anecdote with which to work. Therefore, we would need to know the nature of the anecdote implied by the reference to what he saw in Afghanistan. Until such time, he has provided no anecdotal evidence, but implied that he has some.

You really are making a fool of yourself here, but do continue, i'm wonderfully entertained.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I know it's hard for you to understand these sorts of things, but do try to keep up, if only not to embarrass yourself.

The only thing that's difficult to fathom is how you've been able to escape injury with all the spinning and contorting you've been doing in this thread today. I suggest you stop now before you strain an oblique.

0 Replies

No spinning at all. Revel asked Baldimo for proof. Baldimo implied that he had anecdotal evidence, without providing the anecdote. Anecdote would not have met the burden of Revel's request.

You don't want to acknowledge that because your object, as always, is simply to attack those with whom you disagree politically, or of whom you asume as much. You have not made a single comment in this thread which addresses the topic. That's par for the course.

0 Replies

The erudite Mr. Setanta wrote( in answer to Ticomaya)
quote
You don't want to acknowledge that because your object, as always, is simply to attack those with whom you disagree politically, or of whom you asume as much. You have not made a single comment in this thread which addresses the topic. That's par for the course.
end of quote
The erudite and learned Mr. Setanta decries "attacks" on those with whom you disagree politically? I have never read that Ticomaya attacked anyone in violation of the TOS by name-calling.

Mr. Setanta, despite his erudition and learning, has done it many times in the most disgusting and puerlie fashion.

Shall I replicate Mr. Setanta's name calling attacks?

I am sure that Mr. Setanta cannot replicate any attacks from Ticomaya.

Or, Perhaps Mr. Setanta thinks he has achieved some kind of secular sainthood which would enable him to "name-call" and at the same time denigrate someone like Mr. Ticomaya who has never indulged in name calling.

0 Replies

EDIT: I can't imagine what lead me to the utter foolishness of engaging Italgato/Chiczaria/Massagato/Mortkat/BernardRRRRRRR in conversation.

Move along, folks, the clown is practicing self-abuse, nothing to see . . .

0 Replies

Only Mr. Setanta, who,, of course is highly learned, would say that some people who were "gang-members" would not slip into the military inasmuch as there are so many "gang-members" in the USA.

MS cliques have been tracked to 33 US states and six foreign countries. Officials estimate that of the roughly 845,000 gang members in the US, some 10,000 belong to MS-13. While it may have begun as primarily a substitute "family" for young boys far from home, it has grown into a large crime syndicate, says Luis Li, former chief of the criminal branch of L.A.'s district attorney's office. "What's unusual is the degree of violence and the degree of sophistication that these kids engage in," he says. "Young kids used to get into fights over things like sneakers. Now it's over territory and money"

That's 845,000!!!!

Perhaps Mr. Setanta's service( thank you, Mr. Setanta) in the Medical Corp convinced him that his unit was overrun with "gang-members". I can assure him that there were NO "gang-members" in my unit in the 82nd Airborne. Those who attempted to enforce their leadership through such a membership soon found their way to the brig.

The left wing liberals seize on any graffiti they can find to PROVE that the US Military is riddled with "gang-members". That is ridiculous and anyone who has been in the military knows that offenders, ESPECIALLY DURING WARTIME CONDITIONS, would be immediately jailed.

But, as Foxfure so cogently pointed out, the left wing liberals continue to spew their hatred since they have no confidence in themselves but only in a Utopia on earth.

0 Replies

Mr. Setanta is again being puerile. He wrote:

EDIT: I can't imagine what lead me to the utter foolishness of engaging Italgato/Chiczaria/Massagato/Mortkat/BernardRRRRRRR in conversation.

Move along, folks, the clown is practicing self-abuse

***********************************************************

If the learned Mr. Setanta thinks that is not in violation of the TOS, he is delusional. I would think that such an "erudite" person would be able to converse in rational terms without referring to another poster in such terms.

0 Replies

I didn't say that, Baldimo did. (Edit: Since I/M/C/M/B seems to be slow keeping up with the train of posts, i need to explain that i did not allege that gang members enter the military--Baldimo said that.)

You need to calm down, I/M/C/M/B, you're using caps and shouting again. Don't want to lose it and get banned again . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I didn't say that, Baldimo did. (Edit: Since I/M/C/M/B seems to be slow keeping up with the train of posts, i need to explain that i did not allege that gang members enter the military--Baldimo said that.)

You need to calm down, I/M/C/M/B, you're using caps and shouting again. Don't want to lose it and get banned again . . .

What I was saying and I guess not explaining well was that I have seen gang activity here in Afghanistan in the form of gang signs being thrown and clothes worn a certain way. I have been to one place where I was allowed to wear civilians and there were minorities who where wearing certain colors and only certain colors along with other such symbols of gangs. Bandannas worn hanging out of pockets and belts being worn extra long.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I didn't say that, Baldimo did. (Edit: Since I/M/C/M/B seems to be slow keeping up with the train of posts, i need to explain that i did not allege that gang members enter the military--Baldimo said that.)

You need to calm down, I/M/C/M/B, you're using caps and shouting again. Don't want to lose it and get banned again . . .

What I was saying and I guess not explaining well was that I have seen gang activity here in Afghanistan in the form of gang signs being thrown and clothes worn a certain way. I have been to one place where I was allowed to wear civilians and there were minorities who where wearing certain colors and only certain colors along with other such symbols of gangs. Bandannas worn hanging out of pockets and belts being worn extra long.

Some of my daughter's friends also wear bandanas worn hanging our their pockets with long belts and they don't belong to any gangs.

If there is gang members who are minorities then they should be reported the same as the white supremest groups since it appears that the rule against gangs are not specified to only hate groups.

My thinking is that white supremest groups are in nature a hate group against minorities, on the other hand gang groups of minorities do not as a rule have rules of doctrine and creeds that they follow against whites unless maybe like the Black Panthers or some such.

0 Replies

If that were the case, Baldimo, then no, you didn't explain yourself well at all. And you contradicted yourself, because you originally stated that gang members were not allowed in the military.

As Revel has pointed out, there are young people who adopt "gang fashion" who have never been members of gangs. That includes the use of gang signs. I've seen middle class kids in suburbia who were "gang fashions" and who use "gang signs" in the attempt to appear cool.

You may indeed have seen gang members in the military. But it would be a lot harder to identify them than white supremecists. Keep in mind that the original article made numerous references to activities by white supremacist organizations to convince young white boys to enlist so as to learn light infantry tactics. If the gangs aren't online urging members to enlist, then it's not going to be as easy to find them out.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-respected organization which puts a lot of resources into tracking hate groups. White supremecists have web sites and are very well-organized. It is going to be far easier for SPLC to track their activities than it is of gang members. For the record, i don't think members of any hate group ought to be in the armed forces. One problem with your thesis, though, is identifying gang members with organized hate gruops such as the white supremecists. Members of gangs are usually focused on an urban neighborhood, and not issues of race. White supremecists, as the name implies, are all about racial hatred. Read about Stormfront-dot-org sometime, they're a scary bunch. According to that Wikipedia article, there are well over 30,000 in the U.S., and just over 60,000 world-wide.

0 Replies

HeyTicomaya,in case you didnt know white people are albinos do the
research.

0 Replies

woodman wrote:

HeyTicomaya,in case you didnt know white people are albinos do the
research.

Of course ... by definition an albino is a "white" person. What's your point?

Surely you're not suggesting that an albino can't be of African descent?

0 Replies

I believe it is correct to say that he is pointing out that, going back far enough, everyone is of African descent.

0 Replies

here is an article from the 'chicago sun times' that gives some insight into the question , are ...GANG MEMBERS IN ARMY UNITS ?...
certainly interesting .
hbg

0 Replies

Hamberger_ I read the article, Thank You. It said that there were 320 soldiers identified as Gang Members.

How many military do we have in Iraq?

130,000?

That is such a miniscule number. You might as well write an article-

How many transvestites do we have in the US Millitary?

or

How many Homosexuals do we have in the US Military?

or

How many left wing liberals do we have in the US Military?

In the case of the latter, who I havew found are all timorous cowards, the number would be zero!!!

0 Replies

Neo-Nazis, skinheads American infilitrating military

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know