gangs serving in the military, using tactics after service

[JWarren]

There's been a few tales of gang-members who "go straight on here." That is excellent... but...

I really don't think its relevant to consider a gang member's post-gang life. I'm really only concerned about what he is doing WHEN he IS in a gang.


And I should point out that leaving a gang does not magically erase deeds done while in a gang. They are still responsible. Possibly lives were ruined.

We hunted down Nazi War Criminals into their old age for what they did in WWII. I'd feel the same way with a gangbanger if they shot my sister.


This is one reason that I boycott anything Ice T is in. I read a quote from him that stated that he has killed when he was in a gang. I suppose that any regret he has for that wasn't great enough to take responsibility for it beyond using it to propel his "hard-core" image for movies and TV.


-- John

 

[Rachen]

It is really sad to see that we have such a liberal influence in all of American life.

If there is still a strong Conservative agenda, all gang members would be rounded up and executed.

"Why are gang members allowed to join the military?" That question is RIDICULOUS.

The real question is supposed to be "Why do we allow gangs to form in the US AT ALL?"

In China, criminal gangs are stamped out as soon as they appear. And western nations keep b*tching about our "human rights" while all we execute are criminals.

 

[Code Monkey]

You talk about rounding up and killing people a lot...
What's your malfunction!?!?

 

[Flyboy]

If there is still a strong Conservative agenda, all gang members would be rounded up and executed.... In China, criminal gangs are stamped out as soon as they appear. And western nations keep b*tching about our "human rights" while all we execute are criminals.

Yes, well, here in the civilized world, we have principles like "freedom of assosciation," "innocent until proven guilty," and "proportional punishment."

So we can't just execute people for hanging out together. They have to actually commit a crime, and then we can only punish them proportionately. And you're right, that's a very Liberal idea--one might even say Jeffersonian.

 

[sacp81170a]

In China, criminal gangs are stamped out as soon as they appear.

You're right! I saw it happen on TV. I think it was that thing in Tianamen Square a few years back. Man, that was awesome! That punk who was standing in front of the tank, man when they opened up on the crowd with automatics and crew served weapons that was so cool! Oh, wait...

Oh yeah, I forgot about those Faolun Gong guys. Boy did they ever deserve what they got! Punks!

(/sarcasm off)

 

[Nomad101bc]

I heard from a Chinese student wh owas getting his education at my University; that the total death count of Tianamen square is closer to almost 20k people. He points out there was a massive rural relocation after likely to bury the bodies. His uncle watched and fortunately the Chinese did not see him or he would have been executed.

On a happier note that squirrel looks just like the one my hunting buddy popped on thanksgiving break. I say popped cause we were using .22 magnum rifles google exploding squirrel if you need further details. Squirrel taste and looks remarkably like buffalo wings...kinda off topic lol.

 

[trinydex]

if you legalize drugs there will still be gangs, and why not, they'll either still be selling drugs or selling other stuff to stay alive.

if you legalize drugs there will still be illegal drugs just like there's still illegal bootleg alcohol.

if you legalize drugs there will still be a black market. remember goodfellas, the best way to make money is to sell stolen goods.

 

[jrfoxx]

1) why are gang members allowed in the military at all?

Actualy, I could swear I remmber you having to sign documents swearing that you WEREN'T affilated with any gangs or gang activityas part of enlistment, and it WAS a disqualifier. (admittedly, being asked to sign a piece of paper does absloutely nothing to actually stop the problem, just give them the ability to kick you out, if they somehow found out the truth, whch is unlikely unless you go around advertising the fact, and somemoe who cares hears about it, and can then prove it, or it comes out during background/security clearance checks, whch it obviously doesnt often enough). Does anyone who was a "regular" infantry guy in the Army or Marines know if they even do ANY background/security clearance checks for that rate/MOS? I would have to guess not, or this issue wouldnt really come up.Also, based on the depth of MY security clearance background interviews/investigation it would seem that a LOT less people would be able to be in the military, or in that rate/MOS, as they are REALLY detailed and picky in the background check (I was given QUITE a bit of grief over 1, 15 year old unpaid medical bill on my credit report, and for not remembering the full legal names and adresses of EVERYONE I ever knew/associated with who did any drugs, or that I had smoked pot with the couple time I admitted to having done so back in 92-94 7 years prior to my application for secret clearance.They almost wouldn give it to me)....
Side note-the gentlemen who do security clearance checks/interviews are some VERY intense, humorless, kinda scary and intimidating individuals.

 

[sacp81170a]

Side note-the gentlemen who do security clearance checks/interviews are some VERY intense, humorless, kinda scary and intimidating individuals.

Try an SSBI sometime. It says right there on the form that the penalty for lying is 10 years/$50,000. TS/SCI is some serious stuff.

 

[siglite]

Yeah, just wait'll they ask you about your sexual preferences, and whether they include vegetables or rodents in the polygraph

Yeah, they find things in clearance checks. I had the frowny face guys dig up something I'd completely forgotten about. That sucked. "Oh... oh man, I forgot about that... it's kind of a funny story!"

"Yeah. I'm in stitches. Do go on."

 

[Glenn Kelley]

I expect it will be as much of a problem as membership in motorcycle gangs by Vietnam vets was.

 

[akodo]

what can gang members learn in the army to make them more dangerous out on the streets?

1. handguns suck rifles rock.
2. Your plan of attack should also include how to get out once you are done
3. That thing on the end of the rifle, that's a stock. put it on your shoulder and you can shoot more effectively.
4. those things on the front of handguns and rifles, those are sights, use them to actually hit your target not just to spray random bullets
5. Do things as a group, not peacemeal. Even as simply as standin out front, everyone rush into the Liquour store on my mark 1...2...3!!!!

 

[Rachen]

You talk about rounding up and killing people a lot...
What's your malfunction!?!?

First, of all, I never talk about jackbooted thuggery in any way you're implying.
Second, I wish the US would be more the the US of Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. There is too much putrid sewage flowing in the streets of big cities, and it's starting to move into the rural areas, which is making me have tears in my eyes.

And the thing with libperverts is that they keep stressing for "reforms" ,and "rehabilitation". The thing is, THEY DON"T WORK. GET OVER IT. SURE IT SOUNDS NICE, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Only in a socialist dreamer's mind it works, but in reality, rehab doesn't work any more than trying to ignore the symptoms of bacterial meningitis and hoping it will go away soon.

 

[siglite]

LOL

Now rachen has me thinking of little reform petri dishes for bacteria. Where they can grow on the glucose media and learn to be better, more benevolent bacteria....

 

[XDKingslayer]

My girlfriend and I watched the program last night as well. I can't really imagine some gangbanger adapting to military life. While there may be a few here and there, I think the numbers are very few.

There are very few that adapt to military life. And those that do usually find life rough for the first couple of years.

I had a member of Bassett Grande (I think that was the name) in my platoon. He was a loud mouthed beligerent punk.

At last check he's on his 12th year of service and is a Gunnery Sergeant. Probably a lifer. But it took up to E-5 to get the punk out of him.

 

[trinydex]

First, of all, I never talk about jackbooted thuggery in any way you're implying.
Second, I wish the US would be more the the US of Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. There is too much putrid sewage flowing in the streets of big cities, and it's starting to move into the rural areas, which is making me have tears in my eyes.

And the thing with libperverts is that they keep stressing for "reforms" ,and "rehabilitation". The thing is, THEY DON"T WORK. GET OVER IT. SURE IT SOUNDS NICE, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Only in a socialist dreamer's mind it works, but in reality, rehab doesn't work any more than trying to ignore the symptoms of bacterial meningitis and hoping it will go away soon.

well what do you suggest? rounding up people to kill them results in a different undesireable outcome.

i don't understand why people aren't willing to accept the consequences of the lifestyle they choose to embrace. the universe is filled with balance and diversity adn i don't mean that in some touchy feely artsy fartsy bs way either.

the spectrum of human diversity is what enables "us" to keep the balance, persevere through disasters threatening survival of the greater population. unfortunately that spectrum has a finite percentage of outliers who will not fit in to the "current" mode of societal operation that "we" have chosen.

you can't just cut those people down, because you'll end up cutting everyone down one day... think of it in the cliche killing all "non average height people" eventually no one is average height.

 

[Six O'clock Tactical]

considering gang members most often kill other gang members, ill let them learn how to properly shoot all day long. The more accurate they are shooting at rivals the less likely they are to kill all those bystanders you hear about with their bull**** sideways shooting and one-handed mac-10's.

 

[JWarren]

the spectrum of human diversity is what enables "us" to keep the balance, persevere through disasters threatening survival of the greater population. unfortunately that spectrum has a finite percentage of outliers who will not fit in to the "current" mode of societal operation that "we" have chosen.

you can't just cut those people down, because you'll end up cutting everyone down one day... think of it in the cliche killing all "non average height people" eventually no one is average height.

The logic sounds good, but it falls short in reality. Are you suggesting that gang members serve a societal funtion essential to its survival?

If so... could we say the same thing about pedophiles? or rapists? or serial killers?


There is a substantial difference between diversity and what is simply unethical, immoral, and a bane upon society.

I think your analogy attempts to draw an equal comparison between diversity of genome and personal choices. You can't do that.

If we attempted the metaphysical arguement, it would say something such as "there can be no good without evil." That's true from a perspective point of view, and utterly idiotic in reality.

To use the example of rapists...

You can't say... "Without rapist there would be no consentual sex." Good can exist independent of evil. We just wouldn't percieve good in the same way.

We can do without gangs.


-- John

 

[Poper]

You're right! I saw it happen on TV. I think it was that thing in Waco, Texas a few years back.

There! Fixed it!



Poper

 

[sacp81170a]

We can do without gangs.

I agree completely. The problem lies in who gets to apply the label "gang" and define what it means.

Q: What's the difference between a "good" totalitarian government and a "bad" totalitarian government?

A: A "good" totalitarian government only kills those who "deserve" to be killed. Who deserves it? Why, whoever the government says, of course.

The problem is that gang members still possess the same God given rights as individuals that all of us enjoy until convicted in a court of law of a crime. They still have a right to due process, they're innocent until proven guilty, they have a right to confront witnesses against them, etc., etc. If we decide that members of a particular group can be denied these rights because of their membership in that group, we've taken a giant step toward a totalitarian regime and risk becoming a member of the "wrong" group ourselves one day.

I understand that groups of scumbags will organize themselves for criminal enterprise. There are laws against that, some of which (IMO) come perilously close to setting the stage for totalitarianism. I'm not trying to stand up for the "noble, misunderstood inner-city yutes" so much as I'm not willing to trade all of our freedoms for a little safety. The only logical approach to the problem of gang violence is to make the violence less profitable. I would say that if they met armed resistance from a determined citizenry at every turn, then they would be less apt to use violence in the first place. But that's just my opinion.

YMMV.

You're right! I saw it happen on TV. I think it was that thing in Waco, Texas a few years back.

There! Fixed it!

Ah, but that was a "good" totalitarian government agency that did that, right?

 

[Timthinker]

Is the military the only place where useful tactics can be acquired? This seems like a useful question to ask ourselves. Of course, the army teaches the tactics discussed in this long thread. But can they be acquired elsewhere? I think the answer is yes. We live in an information oriented society where virtually any subject can be researched. And infantry squad tactics falls into this category. Think about it and test my idea by some online research. It might prove a useful experiment.


Timthinker

 

[Code Monkey]

Oh wow... another great post from Rachen.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4113898#post4113898

January 22nd, 2008, 01:30 PM #133
Rachen
Senior Member


Join Date: 03-16-06
Location: New York
Posts: 431

And speaking of that June 4 incident at Tiananmen Square...........If I had a child who actually participated in the riots, I would immediately disown him/her. Stupid teenagers HAVE NO RIGHT to riot against the government who fed their families and clothed them and schooled them. CCP is not Qing Dynasty. They are righteous People's government.

Dude, you've got issues. None of them good. That stuff does not fly in America. My family got the hell out of China because of people like you.
YOU are a jackbooted thug in disquise my not-so-intelligent friend.

This line is from this thread...

There is too much putrid sewage flowing in the streets of big cities, and it's starting to move into the rural areas, which is making me have tears in my eyes.

Yup, a lot of other famous people thought along those lines...
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, the list goes on and on. We've even had some here in the U.S. Hmmm, what are they called? Oh yeah, the KKK.

I'm not trying to insult you Rachen.
All I'm doing is calling you out, so others can see you for the fraud you really are. If one should search your previous posts, there is an emergent pattern.

According to your info/posts...

You are twenty years old and reside in NYC. Yet, you own and carry a LeMat Revolver on the NYC subway. Supposedly, you also own an M1911 pattern pistol and a Ruger revolver of some kind as well.
In addition, if a madman should enter your classroom while in session... you stated you would pull some magicical-mall ninja-wushu neck breaking move.

And the B.S. in your posts goes on and on...

Cut the s**t, leave the High Road, and go play some counterstrike.

 

[R127]

I can resolve the "round people up and kill them" dilema quickly. The government just doesn't have the tools to solve the problem because it isn't an issue of firepower or even mere crime but one of culture. Gangs are negative, criminally oriented parasite CULTURE. Long ago we lost anything that even began to resemble a unified American culture. That was ok because there was still community-centered culture. Now that has been stamped out and even if it wasn't all avenues of remmedy and recourse have been usurped from local communities.

The distant centralized government bureaucracy has a tremendous ammount of force available but it can only use it in the most hamfisted fashion immaginable. Since culture and community has been stamped out and any action that is carried out is done so by the direction of a disconnected leadership there is no clear way for the response to distinguish friend from foe. The consequence is that either nothing gets done at all or else some extremely poorly chosen random attribute is criminalized. Famously most states have laws against wearing masks in public. This grew from a clumsy attempt to discourage the KKK. In contrast a coherent community would be able to recognize an undesirable organization such as the KKK and move effectively against it.

I believe there are other factors in play too. For instance it is very common in corrupt regimes to allow gangs and much crime to go relatively unmolested. It's a classic case of both sides against the middle. The ordinary citizens become trapped between a criminal underclass and a corrupted criminal ruling class left feeling as if they have nowhere to turn. In the long run it never works out because as we see with Brazil the people realize they still have eachother and they are the ones who make civilization anyway and they cut out the middleman. Unfortunately it's often very bloody getting to that point and for some reason the process repeats again often after only a couple generations. Probably because all the wrong people are attracted to positions of power. At any rate we have a lot of pigs at the trough right now who benefit in terms of political clout and cash flow if there is the spectre of gang violence hanging over everyone's head. The terrorism paranoia is just more of the same. Fear is big business.

 

[JWarren]

sacp81170a wrote:

I agree completely. The problem lies in who gets to apply the label "gang" and define what it means.

Q: What's the difference between a "good" totalitarian government and a "bad" totalitarian government?

A: A "good" totalitarian government only kills those who "deserve" to be killed. Who deserves it? Why, whoever the government says, of course.

My friend, you and I are in complete agreement.

When I made the comment "We can do without gangs," it wasn't advocating killing them off. It was part of my diatribe questioning the idea of gangs are some necessary part of the "Bell Curve" of society and are part of the diversity which preserves life/society/whatever.

I was disagreeing that there is any redeeming qualities regarding gangs.

The problem is that gang members still possess the same God given rights as individuals that all of us enjoy until convicted in a court of law of a crime. They still have a right to due process, they're innocent until proven guilty, they have a right to confront witnesses against them, etc., etc.

Again, we are in complete agreement. I frankly believe any group has the right to congregate/assemble/chit-chat/whatever. This includes pro-anything movements-- regardless if they are for or against my beliefs or values. This includes gangs, this includes Neo-Nazi's, Louis Farrakhan's group (I forget the name), The Flat Earth Society, The Masons, my wife's pre-school class, etc. etc.

Their actions at any particular time determine the consequences of those particular actions. If a group is standing on the corner, great... more power to you. If that same group is breaking into my home, they may well have a problem. If they survive that problem, they will likely face charges.

But then-- my view is dependant upon an empowered and armed society which is willing to take its destiny in its own hands.

Eradication of any group is a function of the "Dial 911 and Pray crowd."




BTW.... there are no good Totalitarian governments. I detest anyone believing they know what is good for me better than I know for myself.



-- John

 

[Poper]

I detest anyone believing they know what is good for me better than I know for myself.

John, I can't say it better.
Unfortunately, my elder, white-haired, war hero senator (now a presidential candidate, whom shall remain nameless) has authored more than one letter to his constituents that states something to the effect of 'I understand your disagreement with my position on <fill in your favorite bill here>, but this is a representative republic and as such I must at times exercise my judgment when I believe I know what is better for the people of Arizona.' Gag me! I have one such letter in my file. It's coming, folks. And it cannot be avoided in the upcoming election.

My $0.02.

Poper