Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts
By John Kifner
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Friday 07 July 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."

Let me guess, Can't be true cause it's in the NYT.
 
Here's the problem. Because the Southern Poverty Law center says that racists are joining the military, they are using this as a way of attacking both the President and the war in Iraq.

Is the necessary? If it is infact true that the Army isn't enforcing all of it's rules, why frame it in partisan terms?

Also, how broad is the scope of this. A few hundred men? A thousand? There are about 1.5 million active duty and a million reservists in this country.

Also interesting to note, why did the article only mention white racists, while there are numerous reports of black and latin gangs leaving gang marks while overseas as well? Is that an indictment of the Iraq war, or perhaps it's statement regarding our degrading culture?
 
You'll never get an answer to your questions because Phil only posts articles. He doesn't actually have thoughts.
 
Calabrio said:
Here's the problem. Because the Southern Poverty Law center says that racists are joining the military, they are using this as a way of attacking both the President and the war in Iraq.

Is the necessary? If it is infact true that the Army isn't enforcing all of it's rules, why frame it in partisan terms?

You must have x-ray vision, I didn't see any fingerpointing at a particular political party or at BuSh anywhere in that article. Is there a guilty concience lingering in there somewhere?

Calabrio said:
Also interesting to note, why did the article only mention white racists, while there are numerous reports of black and latin gangs leaving gang marks while overseas as well? Is that an indictment of the Iraq war, or perhaps it's statement regarding our degrading culture?

Probably because the most recent (only?) example of an ex-military extremist-turned-domestic terrorist was McVeigh, who was the root cause of the zero tolerance policy in the first place. Also, there is a difference between gangs and hate groups. One hates people based on where they live (often times gang rivalries are between groups of the same race), the other hates people based on the color of their skin. Not that either should be tolerated in the military.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You must have x-ray vision, I didn't see any fingerpointing at a particular political party or at BuSh anywhere in that article. Is there a guilty concience lingering in there somewhere?
They clearly state that the military is permitting white racists into the military in order to meet their recruiting goals, since they are having problems due to the Iraq war. Which, as always, will evolved into a tacet attack on the Bush. Thus, it is now Bush's fault that neo-nazis are joining the army.

But you knew that. Did you post the article to attack the military or attack Bush?


Probably because the most recent (only?) example of an ex-military extremist-turned-domestic terrorist was McVeigh, who was the root cause of the zero tolerance policy in the first place. Also, there is a difference between gangs and hate groups. One hates people based on where they live (often times gang rivalries are between groups of the same race), the other hates people based on the color of their skin. Not that either should be tolerated in the military.

Perhaps you forgot about the muslim who fragged other soldiers in their tent.
And do you really think racial gangs are tolerant of other cultures and races? Perhaps you should spend some more time in a gang neighborhood.

I love how the left makes McVeigh the poster boy of whatever cause they want to misrepresent. Since they seem to think it's import to find a way to make a white, American born, males equivalently evil as, say, a muslim terrorist, we keep hearing his name.

So, McVeigh is a devote Christian terrorist, he's an ex-military terrorist, he's a skin-head, racist terrorist, he's a conservative terrorist, ect.... But in all I've read, there's no evidence I'm aware of that indicates he was racist, practicing religion, or any of the often attributed labels the left uses, other than a federalist... I also never hear anything about his possible connection to Iraqi terrorism. No surprise there.

here's the interview McVeigh gave to Time magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html
 
Johnny didn't post the article; Phil did.

Johnny is 1% smarter than Phil.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top