You’re being deliberately obtuse. You’re a communications professional, you’re well aware of what I did and did not say.
My line of work is following evidence and facts, reasoning them towards defensible conclusions if there are conclusions to be drawn, and where warranted, providing that information for other parties to act on through processes prescribed in law. Yours, and I’m not saying this at all perjoratively, has generally been to present information and narratives in a way that favours CAF as an institution and that furthers military objectives. There’s nothing wrong with that. We’re both playing for the same side, but with different approaches to the respective value of public perception and narratives versus objective data and intelligence.
In any case- Canada and the west have a verifiable problem with white nationalism as a subset of ideologically motivated violent extremism. That has resulted in both criminal prosecutions (and convictions) as well as threat disruptions, both at home and abroad. These are objective facts. It is also objective fact that there is a conscious effort by such groups to recruit current or former military, or to get people into the military to attain skill sets that may be of use if they can successfully stoke accelerationist violence. Again, these are real events that are playing out continuously, mostly out of public eye, but with occasional visibility in courts or through public interest investigation by journalists and certain activists. While much of the latter is crap, some of it is useful.
CAF, like other allied militaries, is a target for these individuals and groups. You nor I have a proper sense on the extent to which that is the case. There’s more than enough out there to know it’s true, but the true magnitude is likely unknown, and the best informed estimates will be classified. Some decent UNCLASS products come out through ITAC, or other FOUO means, and we both likely have seen those. We’ve likely both gotten some other deeper peaks, but likely at the level of individual instances, not the full, broad scale.
We have a government arms-length body, NSIRA, with access to pretty much everything on the security intelligence side. NSIRA has assessed this trend, and said that CAF is not keeping up with the problem. It seems that CAF is live to this. This is a reasonable concern for them to identify, and it’s their job to flag such issues.
None of this is information that you, I, or anyone else in this thread needs special insight to understand. This is very foundational information for anyone who takes an interest in national security. I’m simply disappointed to see people jumping off half cocked without even attempting that basic understanding. I think some people are being defensive, thinking this is some sort of woke political BS or something when it’s really just sound national security work.
.
