- Post starter
- #13
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
The "war" On Veterans
- Post starter Spock
- Start date
- Status
- Post starter
- #14
- Post starter
- #15
- Post starter
- #16
VA: Veterans Are People Too ~ http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/13800/breaking-veterans-are-people-too/
- Post starter
- #17
- Post starter
- #18
;) Dan...you should write (y)
Back to Perception is Belief. There will always be people that hate. You can fill in the blank of the who, why and what ever else they want to include in there sick little diatribe. They comprise a percentage of the population. Someone like the shooter at the Jewish community center had a long, sick history of hate. I can almost guarantee that he felt the way he did prior to his military service. Why we can't just shoot these people on sight is a mystery to me. So, it happens that he's a Vietnam Vet. All vets aren't good, let's face those facts. It's always been that way and always will.
It's only in a country like America that people will make the kind of comments that belew made. A FREE country. Let her go to Russia or China or N. Korea and say something like that and see what happens. She'd wind up in the next batch of compost in some field somewhere.
Personally, I've had a lifetime of this kind of ideas about me because I served in Vietnam. Guess I really thought we got past all that nonsense. Doesn't seem so.
It's only in a country like America that people will make the kind of comments that belew made. A FREE country. Let her go to Russia or China or N. Korea and say something like that and see what happens. She'd wind up in the next batch of compost in some field somewhere.
Personally, I've had a lifetime of this kind of ideas about me because I served in Vietnam. Guess I really thought we got past all that nonsense. Doesn't seem so.
I belong to a group Mr. Harry Reid has determined to be domestic terrorist. I wasn't a domestic terrorist when I came back from Nam. Nor did 40 years of dealing with the world's worse medical care turn me into a domestic terrorist. Our group consists of retired county sheriffs, police chiefs, active duty military, police and firemen and Reid calls us domestic terrorists.
Could it be that Mr. Reid is scared to death of Americans that exercise their Constitutional rights. Could it be he is sweating out the American public catching him with his hand in the cookie jar? Could it be that he is putting the Chinese first over Americans?
Could it be that Reid is the domestic terrorist by stealing American land in order to give it to the Chinese?
Time to take our country back.
Sarg
Could it be that Mr. Reid is scared to death of Americans that exercise their Constitutional rights. Could it be he is sweating out the American public catching him with his hand in the cookie jar? Could it be that he is putting the Chinese first over Americans?
Could it be that Reid is the domestic terrorist by stealing American land in order to give it to the Chinese?
Time to take our country back.
Sarg
Sleeping Dragon
Platinum Member
Something I posted on facebook. I don't go there often, but lots of folks I know are on there regularly. They need to hear from a Vets' point of view.
Response to the Kathleen Belew Article
On Dangers Posed by Combat Veterans
In Ms. Belew's article she quotes from a report filed by the Department Of Homeland Security. “Military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists carrying out violent attacks,”.....
So, Ms. Belew and Homeland Security, dangerous to whom? I'm sure if you asked the Taniban, al-Qade, the North Vietnamese Army and any other groups who have faced American veterans and their allies in combat, they'd agree that these people are dangerous. If however your point is that combat veterans as a whole need to be watched as a potential threat, then your opinion is not only foolish but also irresponsible.
Combat veterans contribute to the same society that they were willing to die for. They do so while carrying the burdens associated with the horror of war. To imply that they, as a group, must be watched as some kind of threat is shameful and insulting.
From the same article:
"... it would be irresponsible to overlook the high rates of combat trauma among the 2.4 million Americans who have served in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the full impact of which has not yet materialized. Veterans of those conflicts represent just 10 percent of those getting mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs, where the overwhelming majority of those in treatment are still Vietnam veterans."
As a combat veteran under treatment for post traumatic stress let me explain something to you Ms. Belew. Due to the stigma attached to problems associated with combat stress it takes years for veterans to admit they have problems let alone seek professional help. That's why there are so many more Vietnam vets. under treatment at the V.A. and at Vet Centers.
Also understand that there is no cure for Post Traumatic Stress. Veterans learn skills that help them cope, but suffer for the rest of their lives. As mentioned above, they do this while contributing as husbands, fathers, doctors, nurses and countless other members of society.
Response to the Kathleen Belew Article
On Dangers Posed by Combat Veterans
In Ms. Belew's article she quotes from a report filed by the Department Of Homeland Security. “Military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists carrying out violent attacks,”.....
So, Ms. Belew and Homeland Security, dangerous to whom? I'm sure if you asked the Taniban, al-Qade, the North Vietnamese Army and any other groups who have faced American veterans and their allies in combat, they'd agree that these people are dangerous. If however your point is that combat veterans as a whole need to be watched as a potential threat, then your opinion is not only foolish but also irresponsible.
Combat veterans contribute to the same society that they were willing to die for. They do so while carrying the burdens associated with the horror of war. To imply that they, as a group, must be watched as some kind of threat is shameful and insulting.
From the same article:
"... it would be irresponsible to overlook the high rates of combat trauma among the 2.4 million Americans who have served in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the full impact of which has not yet materialized. Veterans of those conflicts represent just 10 percent of those getting mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs, where the overwhelming majority of those in treatment are still Vietnam veterans."
As a combat veteran under treatment for post traumatic stress let me explain something to you Ms. Belew. Due to the stigma attached to problems associated with combat stress it takes years for veterans to admit they have problems let alone seek professional help. That's why there are so many more Vietnam vets. under treatment at the V.A. and at Vet Centers.
Also understand that there is no cure for Post Traumatic Stress. Veterans learn skills that help them cope, but suffer for the rest of their lives. As mentioned above, they do this while contributing as husbands, fathers, doctors, nurses and countless other members of society.
I think Belew is a nutjob.
IMHO students at Berkeley, and other nut job "Higher learning centers", the KKK, and other hate groups are far more likely to become terrorists than vets. We gave an oath upon enlistment to serve and protect, and carry that oath near and dear 'till our death. Many of us would still give our lives to PROTECT our countries, not betray them.
The biggest question in my tiny little brain is related to the recent ranch incident in Nevada. Many, including me, perceived the government response to be excessive and even unconstitutional. From the pattern emerging over the last few decades I think it will be only a matter of time before the two sides come to a massive armed clash. This being if the groups aren't dismantled from within by government infiltration and arrests for different things (taxes, illegal gun/weapon ownership, drunken rage terrorist threats between each other in electronic communications just blowing off steam (Think NSA)
I know many vets are drawn to these types of groups. My question is would an armed response by the constitutionalists be illegal or upheld by the constitution and the courts. Which side would the courts take? Probably the governments. This would by definition, right or wrong, make the constitutionalists, the bad guys.
IMHO, it is better to let the gov commit the crime and hold them accountable (try not to laugh too hard), than engage in the riots ect. proving them right about us.
IMHO students at Berkeley, and other nut job "Higher learning centers", the KKK, and other hate groups are far more likely to become terrorists than vets. We gave an oath upon enlistment to serve and protect, and carry that oath near and dear 'till our death. Many of us would still give our lives to PROTECT our countries, not betray them.
The biggest question in my tiny little brain is related to the recent ranch incident in Nevada. Many, including me, perceived the government response to be excessive and even unconstitutional. From the pattern emerging over the last few decades I think it will be only a matter of time before the two sides come to a massive armed clash. This being if the groups aren't dismantled from within by government infiltration and arrests for different things (taxes, illegal gun/weapon ownership, drunken rage terrorist threats between each other in electronic communications just blowing off steam (Think NSA)
I know many vets are drawn to these types of groups. My question is would an armed response by the constitutionalists be illegal or upheld by the constitution and the courts. Which side would the courts take? Probably the governments. This would by definition, right or wrong, make the constitutionalists, the bad guys.
IMHO, it is better to let the gov commit the crime and hold them accountable (try not to laugh too hard), than engage in the riots ect. proving them right about us.
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
