Ret. US General Wesley Clark Promotes Internment of 'Radicalized' US Citizens on MSNBC

a reply to: reldra

You sure do like to act like you don't know what's going on, don't you?

A common statist tactic, actually. "Who, me?"

a reply to: NthOther

There are a few things to say about this...

1. This is not government policy, this is ONE MAN giving an interview about what HE THINKS should be done. Once again, people on ATS seem to think that any individual in any position of politics or military (even though he's retired) suddenly has the power to magically enact something they want to see happen. An opinion by someone does not mean it's the plan of the government.

2. He didn't say that anyone with any common problem should be locked in a camp. What he actually said was that radicalization of young people can be prevented by the COMMUNITY stepping in and bringing them back into society.

3. Please stop with the stupid paranoia and learn to comprehend English. People here only look increasingly more irrational when they start ranting about something they have taken entirely out of context. It's as if a lot of members here entirely missed a few grades and don't know how to process their own damned language.

4. As for his idea, he's clearly an idiot and doesn't understand his own nations history or the way our governments currently deal with this threat. First of all, it wasn't JUST Nazi sympathizers who were locked up in camps, it was hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent people. Secondly, we didn't have the capability to monitor communications then the way we can now. The ability to entice people with a website has made the task of finding genuine threats far easier. The ability to communicate to people the risks of radicalization is far easier.

The fact that he thinks this is any way comparable to the situation in WW2 shows that he's out of touch and really has no place talking about this issue.

But, most importantly, most people here seem to be unable to understand the difference between one persons opinion and potential government policy. I'll bet Alex Jones is about to do a whole piece on this any minute now.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Sremmos80

I'll make sure to remember that when Ann Coulter or Bachman says some bat# crazy stuff on fox.

lolz

When haven't you all done that?

I find this amusing.

You can't insult the source, because it's MSNBC, the bastion of progressive ideology.
One of your more outspoken progressives was the one doing the talking.

And it simply confirms the authoritarian mindset of that ideology.


I mean, c'mon! This is so anti-freedom that the ghost of Stalin is probably looking at this and saying, "Dayum! That's harsh!"

MSNBC is really 'light news'. I think everyone knows that. However, the republican leaning bews- FOX- seems to have cornered the market on batdung crazy people they let talk- whether it be just rambling or not checking sources. EX: No Go zones and the Hoax twitter message about the Chatanooga shootings.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: reldra

You sure do like to act like you don't know what's going on, don't you?

A common statist tactic, actually. "Who, me?"

I don;t understand to what you are referring since you didn't quote it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

You think there is no one on the republican side that would be all for this type of camp?

Don't know if you've ever read any of my posts/thoughts on republicans, but I find them just as authoritarian as progressives.

Look at TPP.

a reply to: Rocker2013

You're just pissed 'cause he spilled the beans, ain't cha!

lolz

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: reldra

You sure do like to act like you don't know what's going on, don't you?

A common statist tactic, actually. "Who, me?"

I'm waiting. I agreed with your OP. S & F. Where is this "Who me?"

a reply to: Rocker2013

So he's just stupid and we're all just stupid too?

Is that the cut of your jib?

a reply to: beezzer

Fine, how about those that sport the tea party or conservative moniker?

How many were against the actions of our gov and it's use of GITMO?

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Rocker2013

So he's just stupid and we're all just stupid too?

Is that the cut of your jib?

Do you deny what I said is true?
Does he have any power at all to create government policy?
Did he say that people with common problems all need to be rounded up and put in camps?

If you want to put yourself in that category when you clearly see the factual inaccuracies in the claims being made here, then that's your deal.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

Fine, how about those that sport the tea party or conservative moniker?

How many were against the actions of our gov and it's use of GITMO?

We may be talking about 2 different things.

I'm all for GITMO because were like, um, fighting a war.

I'm not for internment camps.

I don't see anyone sane that would be for them. It's authoritarian, as I've said and disregards freedoms. I also find it amusing with progressive authoritarians that they feel themselves immune to the same anti-freedom laws that they would impose on the public.

To give you some idea of where I'm coming from. . . this is what I see the US being under with progressives in charge.

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Rocker2013

Do you deny what I said is true?

Yes.

Does he have any power at all to create government policy?

Yes. Do you understand what the news media really are and how they work?

Furthermore (and more importantly), do you understand their myriad roles in shaping public opinion?

Did he say that people with common problems all need to be rounded up and put in camps?

No. He insinuated it. And rather openly, at that.

In fact, it was so thinly veiled I hesitate to call it "insinuation".

The rest of your post was just name-calling and hate-spewing.

a reply to: Rocker2013

"This is not government policy, this is ONE MAN giving an interview about what HE THINKS should be done."


This man was a high ranking government official, that worked in the highest levels of our government and trained by them to believe what he believes. Just because he is retired, doesn't mean that he is now a "lone wolf" who has lost all learning about what he was taught. He thinks that exact same way his replacement thinks.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: reldra

You sure do like to act like you don't know what's going on, don't you?

A common statist tactic, actually. "Who, me?"

Now 2 people have starred the above post and I don't know what post of mine he was referring to. Can someone let me know?

LOL, in regard to this alone, I do not know what is going on.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

He thinks that exact same way his replacement thinks.

This. Is what people need to remember.

These men are all cut from the same cloth. They wouldn't have ever been tapped for their positions if they weren't.

a reply to: Sremmos80

They're the enemy. Trust the General, he couldn't be wrong.

Locking people up for simply being the wrong religion, or ethnic background...rather than for any grievous actions they might do?

Sad, how we can't seem to learn from history.

Locked up the Nesei during WWII, and the germans, and italians. Even some Native Americans were relocated in Alaska.

How the hell does someone who's career was spent, supposedly, protecting Americans justify a statement like that?

Bought and paid for General. Well done, cur. Well done.

I don’t know why certain people associate interment camps with progressive politics.


Sounds like a Glen Beck voice is on this thread!

The most ardent voice today in the media revealing interment type politics is the well known PROGRESSIVE, the one who brought Snowden to the world, Glen Greenwald.


Many conservatives have called for Snowden's head


In the annuls of political history likely any interment camps in this country will be initiate by conservatives, though not necessarily completely.



Also Wesley Clark is hardly a progressive.


This is really not a progressive versus conservative issue.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: reldra

You sure do like to act like you don't know what's going on, don't you?

A common statist tactic, actually. "Who, me?"

Whatever you meant, it makes no sense. And, anyone who reads my posts knows I do not act like I don't know what is going on, whether I am agreed with or not. I gave you multiple opportunities to point out the post you were referring to. Perhaps you replied to the wrong person by mistake. I'm taking my flag back.

a reply to: Willtell

This is really not a progressive versus conservative issue.

No it's not. It's a freedom issue. Should something like this come to pass? America has gone to a place I will not go.

This isn't Progressive/Conservative. This is totalitarianism. This is speak/think as we tell you to or face these sets of consequences.

This goes far beyond mere partisan politics. People, you've seen it revealed...whether by accident or purposefully. This is where we're headed unless we dig our collective heads out of our asses and start realizing there's a big ol' problem headed our way. They aren't going to come for just the Progressives. They aren't going to come for just the Conservatives. They're going to come for anyone who doesn't fit their idea of what should be.

There it is. Lets ignore it, and pay dearly. Or deal with it, and hope we're in time. Those are the choices as I see 'em. Agree or disagree at your leisure.

One thing though, as I said earlier, Clark is responding this way because the victims were military and he is a guy from the military


Also, forget Wesley for a second and deal with the reality that what he’s saying is likely to take place if things keep going on the way there are proceeding…

The writings are on the wall folks

This incident actually could be a perfect black op to illustrate the reasoning to do what Clark says:

A good boy from the community no one expected to do this is a glaring sign to do what Clark suggests to do!