Skip to main content

View Diary: They planned to kill us "if deemed necessary." (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  look. (11+ / 0-)

    You didn't address my question at all. The FBI was speaking about some entity "deeming it necessary" to assassinate us.

    And I plead for compassion from you that we feel frightened by this.

    My point is that "deem necessary" is language that is used to discuss rational actors, not people whom the writer perceives to be nutcases.

    -- Ryvr
    END THIS WAR NOW

    by Ryvr on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:32:44 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I spent years researching the extreme right (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, Aviate, Dream It Real, AoT

      and this kind of wording is commonly used by nut jobs who are living out Tom Clancyish fantasies.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:59:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the FBI used the language (14+ / 0-)

        I am not accusing the FBI of being the entity that might deem it necessary, but they spoke of some entity that in their words might "deem it necessary." No one has responded to my repeatedly asserted point that no one uses that language to describe irrational actors. We might say "who thinks it is necessary," or something like that, but "deem" implies a rational decision making process. This makes sense that you say nut jobs would say that, but the problem here is that the FBI is using that language to describe the decision to kill us with sniper fire.

        -- Ryvr
        END THIS WAR NOW

        by Ryvr on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:09:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Concur (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joynow, Aviate

          The fact that an apparent FBI agent (I assume an actual agent filled out this report) and referred to this entity in this manner tells me that a degree of authority was granted by the writer.

          It means to me that it was not some lone crackpot, but someone with means who was connected somehow.

          By the way, the marking of that passage - (U/LES) - means "Unclassified / Law Enforcement Sensitive".

          For example, the law enforcement bulletins reported by the U.S. media when the United States Department of Homeland Security raised the U.S. terror threat level were usually classified as "U//LES", or "Unclassified - Law Enforcement Sensitive". This information is only supposed to be released to law enforcement groups (sheriff, police, etc.), but, because the information is unclassified, it is sometimes released to the public as well.
          •  You're overreaching (5+ / 0-)

            The wording in any intelligence report is suppose to communicate the substance of the information received. The characterization refers to how the subject in question is framing the matter, not to any status that the writer is attributing to subject.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:40:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What a strange idea about the content of "intelli- (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bluesee, barleystraw

              gence reports." Maybe in some ideal Clancyesque world these "reports" just communicate the substance of the information received. how plain does it have to be, any more, that the US state-security intelligence apparatus does not work that way, that whole swathes of the people in it are career oppressionists who will tell the story they want the machinery to hear and convey? Ever heard of yellowcake, and other WMD fairy tales? The "writer' way too often has an agenda that is personal or political (in the worst sense.)

              On the other hand, any more, who the f___ cares? We are at that tipping point where all the myths and affectations and stories we hold so dear, the faith that "the constitution" will "protect" us, all disappear into the Matrix. There's subtle trolls here too, whispering in our sensitive ears that notion that "resistance is futile" and the best we can individually do is to steal as much as possible from our fellows, drive them down and stand on their shoulders to try to keep our heads above water as the tide that floats the rich folks' boats rises ever higher.

              "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

              by jm214 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:06:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zett

              ...I know I should not conjecture, that we all bring biases with us, and that the sparse and parsed words provided us are designed to not reveal enough of anything.

              I think it is important news, but I've been around since Jack Anderson, this stuff often goes nowhere.

        •  Have Kossacks not heard of Anders Behring Breivik? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WB Reeves

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          The idea that there are cold-blooded right-wing political killers out there is not conspiracy theory — ask Norwegians.

          The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

          by lotlizard on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:04:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Um, No (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mrs M, Adam B, sethtriggs, Aviate
          but they spoke of some entity that in their words might "deem it necessary." No one has responded to my repeatedly asserted point that no one uses that language to describe irrational actors.
          Actually, I was responding to your point. Evidently I wasn't clear enough.

          The whole point of such "intelligence" is to report an  accurate assessment of what the subject is saying. The report is characterizing the substance of what the subject said. It has nothing to do with an implied status.

          The fact that far right actors indulge in exactly this kind of pseudo-authoritative rhetoric buttresses the point. You have no way of knowing whether the language in question was the choice of the author of the report or drawn directly from the language used by the subject in question.

          Your assertion that "no one uses that language to describe irrational actors" is problematic on two points. The first being: what experience do you have in reading raw intelligence reports that would justify such an assertion? The second is: what defines an "irrational" actor?

          If I were going to speculate at all, I'd have to say it sounds like the sort of thing that might have been culled from a typical bull session in some extremist chat room and yes, such things do make their way into intelligence reports.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:08:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it also 'might have been' from some private securi (0+ / 0-)

            firm or from a police agency, unknown...it might have been a lot of people, you're saying it might have been, while interesting observation does not eliminate or diminish the other actor's possibilities either.

            We need to know who exactly and to what determining factors is doing the dammed 'deeming' here.

            Otherwise, imagine the smirk on the FBI agent's face when he or she decided to not..wait..NOT redact that part.

            I would think that was a lot of fun for them maybe..cause the way it reads now IS domestic terrorism. By design...by somebody who 'deemed' it appropriate to NOT redact the assassination wording. And are you going to make the argument they couldn't possibly be aware of how terrorizing such wording could be?...cue my 11 yr old niece....'really?'

            This is the face of domestic terrorism, right here, this 'redacted' almost, document.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 01:38:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You've created elaborate scenario (0+ / 0-)

              out of essentially nothing.

              However, I've no quarrel with pushing for clarification of this or any other portion of these documents. I do not think indulging imaginative speculations based on misreading the documents is an effective means for achieving this.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 03:13:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •   but your conclusion from nothing was perfect (0+ / 0-)

                at least it wasn't elaborate.
                  There is hardly anything there to misread, your guess is as good as mine, your dismissive tone is unwarranted and unappreciated.

                This machine kills Fascists.

                by KenBee on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:38:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, I'm very tired and probably grumpy (0+ / 0-)

                  I should be sleeping rather than responding. If you were offended by my tone, I can only apologize.

                  My conclusion wasn't intended to be perfect. It was a speculation based on experience. Just my opinion, as I said.

                  It wasn't speculation based on the imagined psychology of an imagined FBI Agent though.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:24:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site