Chortle | 06 Jul 2014 6:43 a.m. PST |
More precisely, what are western armies doing to keep out nuts and/or subversive elements? Many people still remember the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. But there are other dangerous groups. Jessica Stern writes:
All three monotheistic traditions have a conception of an apocalypse, but each believes that its own group will prevail in the catastrophic events of the final days. Some Millenarians hope to bring on that very catastrophe, which they see as a necessary stage in the process of redemption. Evangelical Christian sand Messianic Jews have developed a co-operative relationship, based on their common belief that rebuilding the Temple will facilitate the process of redemption, even though each believes its own group will triumph. Is the military able to keep dangerous people out or are the military hamstrung by the need to be sensitive? In the UK a group of extremists spent years taking over schools in Birmingham while officials did nothing. In the US, Newsweek, on 8th May 2014, reported that Iranian spying in the US was mostly hushed up. That story disappeared into the ether. So I wonder if people are more worried about their jobs than national security. ----- In terms of gaming I have played campaign games, and computer games, where foreign terratories you take over suffer from guerillas. It might also be interesting if your own affluent areas, which will need to attract extra population, start to suffer an insurgency from foreigners who have moved there for work. You could also see a scenario where a group "open the gates of Babylon" to your enemies. |
tuscaloosa | 06 Jul 2014 7:07 a.m. PST |
By nuts, you mean individual wackos who, for whatever reason, start shooting people? Psychiatrists will tell you that there is no way to predict, among already disturbed people, who will suddenly start using violence. And the military already has lots of tests to more or less keep out your garden variety disturbed. Or you're worried about some subversive group stealthily trying to take over the U.S. military from within for their own nefarious goals? Evangelical Christians have already done that. |
Inner Sanctum | 06 Jul 2014 7:40 a.m. PST |
In the UK junior schools are faith based, being judged on results. Plus more practicing muslims than christians. We've had the problem of ira terrorists and others joining the forces for experience. Plus we have muslim and hindu and sikh families with 5 or more generations of honourable service. In a country that simply isn't that religous (mainly in my experience, caused by the above) they either have to hide very well or they stand out like a sore thumb. |
Milites | 06 Jul 2014 7:47 a.m. PST |
Thought Fort Hood was a case of terrorism, which conveniently was ignored as it did nor fit the narrative at the time. |
Cold Steel | 06 Jul 2014 8:09 a.m. PST |
Why do you equate "nut jobs" and religious beliefs? Yes, Judaism and Christianity share the same prophetic beliefs of how the world ends, but that does not equate to "Let's make it happen by blowing up the world." On the contrary, the Bible teaches us to wait on God's timing. There is only 1 religion, more specifically a sect within that religion, that teaches to initiate the apocalypse. The US military has had a rich Christian tradition since it's founding, but they try real hard NOT to bring about the end of the world. Your post looks more like an attempt to stir up discord than an honest question. |
Legion 4 | 06 Jul 2014 8:14 a.m. PST |
|
Chortle | 06 Jul 2014 8:41 a.m. PST |
"Why do you equate "nut jobs" and religious beliefs?" There is almost never a connection. "but that does not equate to 'Let's make it happen by blowing up the world.'"
"the Bible teaches us to wait on God's timing." Right. For most people. I think it is a violation to do so in the Talmud also, for example. The formation of Israel was opposed by many Jewish groups, at the outset, for that reason. Because it seemed to precipitate scripture. Looking for a quote by David Hartley on Christians sacrificing themselves to biblical prophesy. BRB – found in "Observations on man" (1749). In 1896 Reverend Filian said it would be a good idea for Armenian Christians to allow themselves to be massacred in order to start the Messianic Age. Such people are a minority. But you don't want them to become an officer in Air Force Global Strike Command. How many people does it actually take to push the Big-Red-Button? Ask yourself who is running SAC's 843rd bomb wing these days.. |
Zargon | 06 Jul 2014 9:16 a.m. PST |
Hem, to those that have broken brains religion is just a handy tool. I'm amused as to how many 'broken brained individuals there are. Game wise its going to be small little skirmishes with desperate 'broken brained' individuals against the institutions in power ( I like scenarios with a time limit, this brings out the best/worst in the gamers. Any good systems to do this gentlemen? |
Bushy Run Battlefield | 06 Jul 2014 9:33 a.m. PST |
I think Infinity would work well to game this. Small number of models each side, has rules for in-the-way civilians and handles modern weaponry very well. Despite it being a sci-fi game it does work for moderns. |
doug redshirt | 06 Jul 2014 10:06 a.m. PST |
Actually one of the reasons I left the military when I did was the increasing rise of Christian Fundamentalist in the service. I was in for twenty years and their presence was making it very uncomfortable to continue. Luckily the one time I had one as a direct supervisor he only tried to get me to go to church which I got out of. But they were a large minority in the service. Thanks to my rank I could ignore most of them and prevent those who wanted to press their believes on my people from getting too bad. The last year I was in was just terrible though. I just couldn't fight them anymore. There is a problem when one in authority uses that power to force their believes on someone of lesser rank. Then when there is no one to turn to what do you do. |
HistoryPhD | 06 Jul 2014 11:06 a.m. PST |
Well, you kinda have to be a little nuts to join. The military NEEDS dangerous people. You really don't want a bunch of hamsters defending you. I joined right after Vietnam and talk about a bunch of really unstable people who were allowed to use weapons!! |
Legion 4 | 06 Jul 2014 12:36 p.m. PST |
Well right after Vietnam is a sort of a bad example. After that war, the US Military had to "pull-itself-up-by-it's-bootstraps", so to speak. And rebuild itself
But needless to say, yes, the military does need "dangerous" people, especially in combat arms. However, as any of us who were in leadership positions in combat arms, knows we have to be "managers of violence", you could say. Order and discipline is all part of being an effective combat unit. Psychos don't work
Of course I have been out of the Army for over 2 decades. I don't ever remembering running into as we used to call them "Jesus Freaks", back then. Combat Arms generally does not attract that type. Since it's pretty well known what you do when being a Grunt, Threadhead, Gunbunny, etc.
You break stuff and kill people
That being said, I know of very few examples of Christians or Jews, straping a bomb to themselves, walking into a crowd of "unbelievers", blowing themselves and everyone in the vicinty to pieces. And claiming they were doing God's work
|
Dennis0302 | 06 Jul 2014 1:41 p.m. PST |
Just as an FYI, the Ranger Regiment. MARSOC, Delta, SOF and Seals all include the Minn. Multiphasic Personality Test and other written exams along with some pretty intense interviews with a board of head drs. as part of the evaluation process. My time in the USMC dates back to the late 60's. We had a few wild men but the real nuts were weeded out very quickly. As to Jesus Freaks I never met one. As Legion 4 said they don't seem to be drawn to Combat Arms. Certainly not the grunts. I do have to say that I didn't know that there were issues with Christian Fundamentalists in the active duty military. I'm a bit surprised at people being approached by a superior to go to Church or be converted. I would think the chain of command would come down as hard on this as they would on sexual harassment. |
MajorB | 06 Jul 2014 2:11 p.m. PST |
"How to keep nuts out of the military?" Don't allow squirrels to serve
|
TNE2300 | 06 Jul 2014 2:43 p.m. PST |
there is a very big difference between "dangerous people" and people capable of being dangerous |
Timotheous | 06 Jul 2014 3:55 p.m. PST |
I was under the impression that the military, like our culture at large, was becoming more secular, or at least becoming less Christian. Or you're worried about some subversive group stealthily trying to take over the U.S. military from within for their own nefarious goals? Evangelical Christians have already done that. Nefarious goals? Really? What would those be, hmmm? Honestly, in this day and age, we should be honest about the source of religious violence in the world today, without throwing in a notion that other religions are just as bad. Back to the O.P., I did see where some drug gangs were entering the military to get combat training for fighting law enforcement and other gangs when they got out. The service needs to weed these out. |
SouthernPhantom | 06 Jul 2014 3:59 p.m. PST |
That's what I was thinking, Cold Steel. In any case, Christian fundies are largely harmless. I'm hard-pressed to recall any incident involving a Judeo-Christian suicide bomber or green-on-blue. More worrying is the tendency for avowed enemies and/or gang members using service to acquire combat training |
Mark Plant | 06 Jul 2014 5:56 p.m. PST |
More worrying is the tendency for avowed enemies and/or gang members using service to acquire combat training. It would be a rare gang member with the patience to serve a full term that would go back to being in a gang. Only to fight alongside people he would regard as loose cannons and despise for their lack of discipline. A much more real threat is ex-specialists who decide to go free-lance together after service. And there is little to no way to determine who is going to do that beforehand. It's a problem as old as military service, from robber barons in Medieval times through to the Zetas in Mexico. |
Chortle | 06 Jul 2014 6:27 p.m. PST |
"I did see where some drug gangs were entering the military to get combat training for fighting law enforcement and other gangs when they got out." The origins of Los Zetas date back to the late 1990s when commandos of the Mexican Army's forces deserted their ranks and decided to work as the armed wing of the Gulf Cartel, a drug trafficking organization. In February 2010, Los Zetas broke away from their former employer and formed their own criminal organization. Some of the original members, who had come from the GAFE unit, had during the 1990s reportedly received training in commando and urban warfare from Israeli Special Forces Units and American Special Forces units, which included training in rapid deployment, marksmanship, ambushes, counter-surveillance and intimidation |
badger22 | 06 Jul 2014 7:27 p.m. PST |
that I am aware, gangs have been joining the US Military for thirty years. i imagine they have been doing it long before I came along. it would not seem an easy thing for them to do. But like all organizations, the members are not all alike. certainly the polder hardcore ones dont qualify, because of thier arrest record if nothing else. And most long term ones are also excluded by thier tattoos. I went to a school twenty years ago that among other things taught what assorted gang tats meant. Now just having one tattoo does not make you a gang member. oif you have a tattoo from a skinhead gang and one from a latino gang and one from an african american gang, you most likely are not really a member either. An idiot certainly. I dont want to go into a long class on what means what, but there is a logic to them, and they are earned in a general order. They have meaning to fellow members, even if we on the outside dont always get it. As a recruiter, I enlisted several former gang members. In all cases they had to go see somebody who was a lot more expert than me and convince them that they really where former meebers and not current members looking for a bit more polish on thier resume. not always an easy task. As for fundimentalists, we had a few, almost always officers. But we have always had people who go to church, often regularly. We have also always had a lot of Masons. An all volinteer Army is always going to be vulneravble to particular groups enlisting for thier own reasons. When i first joined, they army had two big areas that where over represented. Country boys who wanted to get off the damned farm (ME) and inner city kids who want a better chance to do something with them sevles. oppertunety has always over attracted recent immigrant groups as well as minoritys. Is it any wonder that certain fundamentalist groups are enlisting in greater numbers because of the ongoing war? That is not in itself a problem. The problem arrises when they get into senior positions and betray thier oaths to further thier own agenda by trying to recruit members into thier own organizations. I suspect, as we now have far fewer troops on the ground getting shot at, this will in a large part go away. Sure it will take time, for the system to slowly purge itself. But as the reason they joined in the first place is largely gone, there is not that much to keep them in. besides, the Army has always had its own corrupting influence on new members, I suspect they may have cleaned up some of the less apealing parts of the Army. But we still dont want choirboys. As Phil Sheridan is supposed to have sai "If a man wont he wont fight either" owen |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Jul 2014 7:49 p.m. PST |
I've only dealt with two Fundamentalist/Born Again Christians in my service (all 5 years of it, mind). One was a Chief, and he was annoying about pushing his faith. The other was a lot less pushy about it, and we actually went to his church to watch 'Passion of the Christ'. ouch, painful movie! The only potential problem fundies are the officers and senior enlisted. Most of the senior enlisted aren't willing to put up with any bullcrap from one of their own agitating for more people to go to his church, that gets shut down pretty hard. And we tend to make them the lay leader, so they have to do all the prep work for services. Fundamentalist/Evangelical officers can be a real problem, but all it usually takes is to direct a comment to the unit's Senior Enlisted Advisor (aka Command Master Chief or the First Sergeant). Then their boss takes them into a closed-door meeting and they calm down or get more and more work until they calm down. |
Dragon Gunner | 06 Jul 2014 9:18 p.m. PST |
Religious extremism was not an issue when I was in as others have stated combat arms does not attract them. Ultra patriotic types that don't like the direction the country is headed boat loads of those. They are not plotting to overthrow the country or start WW3. They have an almost universal distrust of the civilian government they view as corrupt, dishonest and self serving. It would not take much to unite them if they felt it was justified
|
Legion 4 | 07 Jul 2014 8:23 a.m. PST |
I'm pretty sure there are very few real gangbangers that make the cut as well as the religious fanatics, into the military
A few like many small vocal minorities/factions make a lot of noise but really are statistically insignificant, IMO
I'm not really too concerned about Loonies getting into the Military. But much more about the loons trying to make the world an islamic caliphate
|
ScoutJock | 07 Jul 2014 9:01 a.m. PST |
In my service experience, early 80s to late 90s, I really only recall the Church of Latter Day Saints crowd standing out and that was because they went around with holes in weird places in their underwear. I also participated in a few H&W inspections looking for gang tattoos and other marks of gang affiliation. There weren't any gang bangers interested in aviation apparently, although the ground squadrons had a couple of guys they IDed. Never heard whether they did anything with them though. That was right after the ODS. Talking with friend's kids who went through the service academies recently, they say there are Christian Fundies there pushing their beliefs, but not to the extent the media would have us believe. Big surprise. |
Milites | 07 Jul 2014 3:34 p.m. PST |
I heard they certain US units used to unofficially employ gang members as realistic opponents during melee combat! In fact one particular unit had to keep a serious reign on former gang members who would beat the ***p out of their old gang 'buddies', given any opportunity. The anger stemming from the genuine sense of brotherhood they felt in uniform, and the realisation of what the gangs really stood for. |
Legion 4 | 07 Jul 2014 3:39 p.m. PST |
Ah
I don't think that sounds right
|
Milites | 08 Jul 2014 12:53 p.m. PST |
I queried it at the time, when I heard it from my friend who'd been seconded to a US unit as an intel specialist. Later though in conversation with a customer who was a USMC sergeant ( a complete movie stereotype, complete with scars, mainly from his time in gangs) about this. He all but confirmed it, but said it was officially frowned upon and now no blind eyes were turned. Never had any further confirmation or outright denials, so your guess is as good as mine, I'd trust my friend of thirty years 100% though, he's not a, 'wake up and smell what your shovelling' man. I certainly know in the UK you do not want to pick on any ex-paras as you will be targeted for a severe shoeing, and SBS special forces once ambushed thugs who were lying in wait to beat up sailors. Trouble was they injured the thugs so badly they were threatened with being RTU'd. |
Legion 4 | 08 Jul 2014 5:23 p.m. PST |
Just seems to me to be rare. And in the US, it appears no one is generally dumb enough to target Spec Ops types
or soldiers in general. Rarely do I remember locals/townies getting into fights with soldiers stationed nearby. Much more likely soldier on soldier fights
|
tuscaloosa | 08 Jul 2014 5:31 p.m. PST |
The story isn't faintly true, Milites. |
badger22 | 08 Jul 2014 7:49 p.m. PST |
From when I was in LA as a recruiter, I cant say that most gang members can teach much of anythng about fighting. I saw way more fights than i wanted to and almost all of them where a big mob jump one to two guys. no great technique, just knock down and stomp. The very few one on one fights I saw consisted of a lot of pushing and a few punches. beat people up? Sure they got that down. Assualt a prepared position? not so much. If you want to see how well they do even with numbers advantage, google "Ash Street Shootout" Not a story from somnebody who knows somebody, but a story that made national news. Even had a couple reports already on scene. |
Milites | 09 Jul 2014 11:41 a.m. PST |
Oh really Tuscaloosa, give me evidence that backs up your assertion. Bearing in mind I heard it from a trusted friend, who was in direct contact with the US Army (he worked for the MOD as a senior advisor, at the time) and curious as to its veracity asked a serving USMC sergeant, who had been in a gang, before signing up, and was told that, yes incidents like that did happen occasionally. Now, I did clearly state melee combat, not assaults or any use of firearms and having worked and lived in some of South London's more salubrious neighbourhoods are more than versed in a gangs inherently cowardly nature and abysmal accuracy with any firearm. |
badger22 | 12 Jul 2014 3:14 a.m. PST |
The problem is that people just cant keep thier mouths closed. American soldiers are always bad about that. After all, your friend told you and you told us. If it had happened to very many people as badly as implied, somebody would have talked within a day or two.And, around a US base, it would be picked up by at least one local news station. There is always one on hand that doesnt particularly like the local military. many do of course. First time somebody gets hit harder than they like they are whining about it after hours. if it was more than a very small group, or it happened regularly, somebody would talk. if they where mad at thier NCO, they might call the news station themselves. So could it happen once or twice with just a few people? Sure. regularly with say a platoon or more? no way, you have heard about it on the six O'clock news. owen |
Milites | 12 Jul 2014 4:25 a.m. PST |
Agree completely, never said it was widespread, and it was only localised to ex-gang members in one unit. What I did find interesting was the fact the USMC sergeant had also heard of similar goings on. It also should be mentioned that this was in the pre-internet age, where such incidents had a better chance of being kept hidden. |
badger22 | 12 Jul 2014 4:59 a.m. PST |
depending on how much before, it becomes a lot more believeable. Crap went on in the late 1970s early 1980s that are largely unbelieveable to those of us that saw them, and really nubelieveable to those that didnt. Fortunetly, we are way past those dismal days. Unfortunetly, it sounds like we are haveing a new set of dismal days we will have to rebuild from again. As for the Marines, they always seem to have thier own little world. owen |
Milites | 12 Jul 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
Late eighties, early nineties, yes, stories I've heard from British troops are pretty amazing, and when you filter out the bullsh***ers are remarkably consistent. |
Zelekendel | 28 Jul 2014 2:32 a.m. PST |
"an insurgency from foreigners who have moved there for work." Replace "work" with "free money" and you can paint a pretty frightening picture for Europe. |