The media is insistent that far left groups are just as dangerous as those on the right

[CatWoman]

but tell me, which "far left groups" have made headlines due to unnecessary hatetred and violence?

Buehler?

Buehler????????

[stray cat]

1. Not so much headlines

but children of scientists harassed and threatened by Animal Rights individuals on their way to school - and in the past burning and bombing buildings.

[Mari333]

2. what constitutes a far left group?

name one?
okay on edit: the animal liberation front.
but even I want to attack people who harm animals if I see them doing it. does that make me a terrorist?

[Downtown Hound]

11. To clarify one thing:

Neither ALF nor ELF attack people. They destroy property, but their actions have never directly harmed another living person. That right there is one of the major differences between left wing "terrorist" groups and right wing ones. Left wing radicals destroy property. Right wingers kill people. In that sense, if the media or the government was truly fair, ALF and ELF wouldn't qualify as terrorist groups. Arsonists? Yes. Vandals? Yes. Terrorists? No. To be a terrorist, one has to target people, not property.

[Mari333]

15. thanks for the clarification

I agree

[KittyWampus]

28. Terrorism is aimed at changing societal behavior. I am not excusing terrorists just because they

choose arson which could easily lead to manslaughter rather than first degree murder.

[Downtown Hound]

33. How about breaking a window?

Is that a terrorist act? The government thinks so. Be very careful when applying the label "terrorist." Before you know it, any act of subversion could be considered terrorist.

[PVnRT]

38. The ALF frequently threatens researchers

You know, death threats and the like. The property they target is targeted to intimidate those researchers into stopping their work or moving away.

Please explain how that is not terrorism.

[flvegan]

43. The ALF does not make death threats.

The ALF doesn't make physical threats against people. Please, get your facts straight.

[PVnRT]

51. OK, then

http://www.csicop.org/si/2008-03/connparker.html

The Animal Liberation Front can speak for itself, however. Says one of its leaders, Tim Daley, "In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by gasoline bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It’s a war, and there’s no other way you can stop vivisectors" (Lovitz 2007). Jerry Vlasak, head of the ALF Press Office, is equally candid, "I don’t think you’d have to kill—assassinate—too many . I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives"

...

In 2006, members of ALF declared that they left a Molotov Cocktail outside the Bel Air home of Dr. Lynn Fairbanks, the Director of the Center for Primate Neuroethology at UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute. Actually, the explosive device was placed on the porch of the faculty member’s seventy-year-old neighbor. Fortunately, the timing device failed (Editors 2006).

About one year later, a group calling themselves the Animal Liberation Brigade claimed responsibility for placing a lighted incendiary device next to a car parked at the home of Dr. Arthur Rosenbaum, who is chief of Pediatric Ophthalmology at UCLA’s Jules Stein Eye Institute.

...

As the editors of Nature Neuroscience (Editors 2006) put it, "Over several years, the researchers have been subjected to a campaign of harassment that included demonstrations at their homes and pamphlets distributed to their neighbors, as well as threatening phone calls and emails. Elsewhere, targets of similar protests have had abuse shouted through bullhorns or painted on their homes or cars, doorbells rung repeatedly, and windows smashed or doors broken down while family members were in the house. Animal-rights Web sites post the names of scientists’ spouses and children, along with their ages and schools."

I expect the splitting of hairs to start at any moment - "Those aren't necessarily all the acts of the ALF, just some fringe splinter groups." Oddly, that's the same argument I heard from right-wingers about the DHS' now-redacted report on terrorism from there side.

[flvegan]

59. Vlasek is the self-appointed spokesperson for the ALF.

He represents nobody, and neither does Daley. Vlasek, and I'm speaking from the heart here, is the biggest douchebag in the "animal rights" movement.

*****************

The ALF credo

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.

The ALF's short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. Their long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business.

It is a nonviolent campaign, activists taking all precautions not to harm any animal (human or otherwise).

Because ALF actions may be against the law, activists work anonymously, either in small groups or individually, and do not have any centralized organization or coordination.

The Animal Liberation Front consists of small autonomous groups of people all over the world who carry out direct action according to the ALF guidelines. Any person or group of people who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.

*****************

It's not splitting hairs, it's just the facts. The ALF doesn't make death threats. Because one or two idiots claim an affiliation to an "organization" and wish to carry out physical violence, doesn't make the "organization" complicit with them.

[clear eye]

83. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Why is animal rights considered left wing?

How is experimenting or not experimenting on animals left or right? It's not an issue of gov't action for the welfare of the mass of citizens vs. freedom of action for the most powerful, which is what I think is the generally understood definition of left and right? Am I missing something?

[Posteritatis]

95. Find some right-wing groups espousing animal rights

I'd hold my breath while you do so, but I'd fall down and die.

[clear eye]

98. Find some "left wing" group espousing it explicitly.

Animal rights groups espouse animal rights. Your pointlessly combative remark still doesn't tell me why they should even be considered part of the left/right continuum any more than militant historical buildings preservationists are.

[Posteritatis]

104. Well, there's the social-democratic party we voted into office in my neck of the woods Tuesday

My "pointlessly combative remark" wasn't one at all, and I find it silly that you interpreted it that way. It's simply a fact that people on the right are by and large contemptuous at best, actively hostile at worst, when it comes to the idea of animal rights, the same way they are to environmental issues.

It's a left/right issue because the left and the right are, generally speaking, on opposing sides of the issue. Really, that's not terribly complex.

[clear eye]

108. Not "fact" at all.

"It's simply a fact that people on the right are...contemptuous...when it comes to the idea of animal rights". Many conservatives are passionate about supporting the SPCA, for instance, and some go further and feel strongly about not experimenting on animals. Since people can't assume with any level of confidence the general political beliefs of an animal rights activist, seems to me describing them as leftwing is an error, or at least an oversimplification.

I don't know anybody doing physical actions against animals in medical research, but the strongest opponent of it that I know and an active PETA member is also an active Republican.

[Downtown Hound]

45. Death threats happen all the time

I've even had them made against me. Is everyone that makes one charged with terrorism? No. So, what you're saying is, it's only terrorism when done by animal rights activists? You see the thing I've noticed is, property destruction is only terrorism when it's done by left wing radicals. The rest of the time, it's just considered a violent crime. The definition of terrorism became a lot more broad after 9-11 to where any subversive political act could be considered terrorism.

[PVnRT]

53. It depends on what the motive is

If they are seeking to intimidate people, it's terrorism.

I seem to remember, in the days after 9/11, a few mosques in Chicago getting vandalized; you can guess what kind of messages were written. Would you argue that that is not terrorism either?

A few years ago, a Holocaust museum in Terre Haute (where I'm from) was burned nearly down, with "Free Timmy " spray-painted later on one of the surviving walls. I suppose that's not terrorism either?

I am not arguing that left-wing terrorism is "as bad" as that from the right at all. I'm just sick of the lengths people go to to excuse these acts because they agree with the goals in some way.

[Downtown Hound]

61. I'm not excusing anything

Just because I don't think it fits a certain definition doesn't mean I automatically support the act. I never said I supported breaking windows or setting fire to property. I just think that labeling politically subversive groups as terrorists is something that all governments love to do. And you need to be really careful about letting them get away with it.

I for one, don't see how you can argue that a death threat is not intended to intimidate. As someone that has had them left on my answering machine (love triangle, girlfriend with another guy, he calls me up and tell me he's going to take me out from the bushes, that sort of thing), trust me, they're very intimidating. Now I understand by certain definitions of the law, that can be construed as making a terrorist threat. It was intended to intimidate me, make me scared, make me look over my shoulder. And it worked. Until I found out who I was actually dealing with and found out he was far more talk than walk. But to this day, I don't think of him as a terrorist. Not because he turned out to be a pansy, but because he never actually tried to harm me. If he had slashed my car's tires, broken my windows, or set fire to my home, what does that make him? A criminal, in my book. But not a terrorist.

[PVnRT]

80. OK, then, what exactly is a terrorist?

If someone hijacks a plane and makes demands, but doesn't harm anyone, are they still a terrorist?

[Downtown Hound]

84. If they have hijacked a plane, and threatened to harm the passengers

Then yes, they're a terrorist. If they spray painted graffiti on the airplane under the cover of darkness, then I would say no, they're not terrorists.

[KittyWampus]

71. Oh, burning a cross is DEFINITELY considered terrorism.

[Downtown Hound]

72. Can you point to me cases in which somebody that only burned a cross

was charged with terrorism? Or were they simply charged with a hate crime? The KKK are a terrorist group because all of their actions are connected with the actual harming and lynching of people. Or at least they used to. They've tried to clean up their act in recent years. Not that they've succeeded much.

[PVnRT]

79. What's the difference between a hate crime and terrorism? (n/t)

[Downtown Hound]

87. Number one:

Motive. Hate crimes are crimes directed at certain people for their skin color, sexual preference, religion, ect. Terrorism is done against governments and institutions in response to their policies.

Now, terrorism can be legally construed to include destruction of property, but that's what I think is a very slippery slope. Is a tagger a terrorist if his messages are political? The law seems to have no problem labeling those that smash windows or light fires terrorists, but they balk at things like graffiti. Why? Less destructive? Is there some legal line that makes it terrorism only when it reaches a certain level of destruction?

You see, that's the problem with labeling property destruction in and of itself terrorism. Is a high school student that slashes his teacher's tires because he got a bad grade a terrorist? After all, it could be argued that he also was attempting to intimidate and coerce through violent means. It could also be argued that he was attempting to influence his personal agenda with a government institution (a public school). So is it terrorism?

I also think you have to take into account the context of the grand scheme of things in which the actions in question are happening. In the case of animal rights activism or eco-arson, it is the stated position of most of the groups involved that they do not and have NEVER intended to harm a living being. That is simply not true with the case of the KKK and other such groups, who have proven histories of murder, lynchings, beatings, and other violence. Therefore, that is why I don't think it qualifies as terrorism. Property destruction alone is not worthy of the title.

[riverdeep]

97. Global War On Hate Crimes.

GWOHC. Doesn't scan as well as GWOT.

[Gwendolyn]

44. What about spray painting murderous epithets on synagogues and mosques?

Vandalizing cemetaries, setting fire to schuls under the cover of night? These are destruction of property crimes but they still suffice to instill a sense of terror and fear in the targeted communities. The message is "get out, or we'll get you." Couldn't you say that terrorism is basically hate crime that comes with sequels?

[Downtown Hound]

48. I would say that terrorism is the sequel

In the cases you mention, those are hate crimes, not terrorism. As such, individuals that commit those offenses are charged as such, not with terrorism.

[bdamomma]

58. yes, I agree with your comment.

[Spoonman]

13. No,

It makes you a criminal if you do attack someone.

[flakey_foont]

3. none, of course

but the media continues to try and deflect any negativity away from the fragile sensitivities of
the Right.......fearing another controversial fake outrage because their widdle feewings were hurt if that mean bad person doesn't pamper them.....so the Right can do their 'I know you are but what am I" thing...'well, the Left is just as bad! They have Rev. Wright and William Ayers, blah blah blah"

[tridim]

4. Fair and balanced bullshit is what it is.

[Supersedeas]

110. or just bs

[leeroysphitz]

5. That is bunk but I bet things will change if these nut jobs think they can keep gunning us down

with impunity. Christians may have been admonished to turn the other cheek but as an I atheist I am under no obligation.

[RandomKoolzip]

6. A few enviro-wackos here and there compared to a widespread and organized

underground movement who promote murder, stockpile weapons, who possibly number in the hundreds of thousands, and who find advocacy in the mainstream with high-profile figures like Ann Coulter and Glen Beck...hmmm...lemme see.....


Well, by my calculations....yup! Equals! In terms of power and credible threat, total equals. Never mind that leftist terrorists are laughably ineffective and disorganized, while rightist terrorists (who see themselves as parts of a larger movement) commit murder AND get defended on Cable news shows.

Hey, next time some self-described Communist murders a CEO, lemme know, because then the scale will have TOTALLY tipped to the left.

[Spoonman]

16. The tide ebbs and flows......

"...Left-wing groups were responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of domestic terrorism in the United States during the 1980s. -- From 1980 to 1985, a five-year period when leftist domestic terrorists were most active in the United States, 173 terrorist incidents were recorded by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995). During the next 10 years, when right-wing extremists were most active, only 83 incidents were recorded (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995).

Karl A. Seger, Ph.D. for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Safeguards and Security

Never mind that leftist terrorists are laughably ineffective and disorganized

...Because leftist extremists are better educated than members of right-wing groups, they have the ability to organize more effectively, and once committed to a militant revolution, they are more of a threat.
Karl A. Seger, Ph.D. for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Safeguards and Security

[RandomKoolzip]

18. Right-wing terrorism is much more of a threat in America than left wing terrorism.

Right now. Your stats are from the 1980s; a lot has happened since then, doncha know. AND I know you want to bring the 1960s into this, but come on. That was a long time ago. There's no equivalence between the Weather Underground then and Operation Rescue now.

Plus, the "incidents" mentioned above - are they murder? Destruction of property? Theft? Kidnapping?

Rightist terrorists murder human beings.

Leftist terrorists are more likely to vandalize or destroy property. Which do you consider more of a threat?

[Spoonman]

27. By your own logic,

In the year 2049 you need to dismiss the Holocaust Museum shootings by stating "come on , that was a long time ago!"

Time does not trivialize criminal acts!

[RandomKoolzip]

31. So you consider the threat of left-wing terrorism to be as great as the threat of

right-wing terrorism?

[Spoonman]

37. I consider all terrorism a threat equally!

The acts committed are not "softened" by the perpetrators political view!
I believe there is equal threat from both sides.
The "we are better than them" bullshit needs to end, let the kids in grade school play that game.
Get it?

[RandomKoolzip]

42. You're missing my point - that the right's terrorist acts are much more harmful

and deadly than the left's. In terms of severity, organization, and "credibility" (to use the FBI's term), the right's acts of terror dwarf the left's. It's not a question of ideology, it's a question of ACTUAL DANGER. What I'm getting from you is that you think that an ELFer torching a bulldozer in the middle of the night is the equivalent of an Operation Rescuer killing a doctor in his own church, during service - I'm saying that the former is much less severe an act (in moral and concrete terms) than the latter, even though they're both "criminal acts." And that, in general, the right is more willing and capable of carrying out acts similar to the latter than the left is at carrying acts similar to the latter.

Thus, the right is more of a threat than the left.

[Spoonman]

32. Terrorism is a threat that knows no bounds, Left or Right,

It's a mentality that needs to stop regardless of it's location.

BOTH SIDES have problems, and sticking your head in the sand does not solve it.

And your a very wrong about left wing terrorism being "property damage only".

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2432776,00.html

[RandomKoolzip]

36. Why is "property damage only" in quotes? I never wrote that.

Don't spoon-feed words into my mouth, Spoonman.

Both sides have problems, but YOU'RE the one who has his head in the sand if you think there's an equal and balanced threat from the right and left. One is, objectively, much more dangerous than the other.

[Spoonman]

39. "I never wrote that"

Leftist terrorists are more likely to vandalize or destroy property.

Next time I'll try to avoid your foot with my "spoon".

More dangerous than the other?

Last time I checked, it didn't matter how your assailant voted, destroyed was destroyed and dead was dead.

[RandomKoolzip]

46. My sticking point is you inserting the word "ONLY" in your paraphrase.

Yes, i am quite aware that there have been murders committed by self-proclaimed leftists. You were intentionally misrepresenting my opinion by making it seem as if I thought that ELF and similar groups restricted their activities to property damage exclusively.

Vandalism is a far lesser crime than murder. Sorry, it just is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Kinda matters who is doing the counting, doesn't it?

Particularly when RW terrorists are written of as just criminals and lone nuts, but leftists are part of the World Communist Conspiracy?

I would LOVE to see a breakdown of the 'statistics', and what incidents they reference.

How many of the referenced leftist terrorist incidents were property crimes, like the Weatherman bombings?

How many of the referenced RW terror incidents were murders, like the assassination of Alan Berg?

How many murders of gays and minorities by RW affiliated persons were written off as simple crimes rather than counted as terrorism?

Even that last statement has a grain of truth to it, in that a TINY group like the Weathermen was responsible for a number of incidents which magnified their profile. However, compared with terrorist organizations like the KKK which have thousands of members who are dumbfuck yahoos, I think a reasonable person would be more wary of 10,000 dumbfuck yahoos than 10 undergrad dropouts playing at revolution.

[clear eye]

86. They were apparently not considering all the vandalism of abortion clinics "terrorism".

But vandalism of SUV's by extreme environmentalists was. There were definitely more than 83 acts of vandalism of clinics during that period. And again, I ask, what definition of left and right makes animal rights activists "left". You omit them, and all we've got here by way of left groups that could remotely be called terrorist would be ELF. And they're not currently active that I've heard about.

[riverdeep]

100. It's hard to say how just how much is actual left wing terrorism

and how much is infiltration similar to COINTELPRO. We know that many of the 'Black Bloc' anarchists protesting violently in Seattle had been infiltrated and many suspect that the violence was being led by them. At the G20 summit this year in London, a peaceful anti-poverty group was denied licenses at the last minute, while the Black Bloc groups were given a clear despite announcing in advance which buildings they were going to hit (so the media could be at the ready perhaps?).

Going back to COINTELPRO:

They used secret and systematic methods of fraud and force, far beyond mere surveillance, to sabotage constitutionally protected political activity. The purpose of the program was, in FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's own words, to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit and otherwise neutralize" specific groups and individuals. Its targets in this period included the American Indian Movement, the Communist Party, the Socialist Worker's Party, Black Nationalist groups, and many members of the New Left (SDS, and a broad range of anti-war, anti-racist, feminist, lesbian and gay, environmentalist and other groups). Many other groups and individuals seeking racial, gender and class justice were targets who came under attack, including Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, the NAACP, the National Lawyer's Guild, SANE-Freeze, American Friends Service Committee, and many, many others.

...

Third, there was harassment through the legal system, used to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html

I'm not saying in any way that left-wingers are immune to violent tendencies and haven't acted on them. It just that it becomes a bit shadowy when you try to quantify.

[eridani]

111. Back then our local free university always had gun maintenance workshops

That was to distract the FBI agents from the real courses.

[T Wolf]

7. Have you noticed the white-washing of the museum terrorist? He is a "white separatist"

or an "anti-Semite", but NEVER described as "right-wing" or conservative.

White-washed, indeed.

[Journeyman]

8. The Earth Liberation Front . . .

however, as with radical rightist groups, definitions and alliances are open to discussion, and neat pigeonholing is not easily accomplished.

[LeftyMom]

29. doesn't do violence against persons, just property damage.

:patriot:

[PVnRT]

41. Property damage intended to intimidate others

Just because it's not as bad doesn't mean it's not terrorism.

[LeftyMom]

54. Vandalism.

[PVnRT]

60. Is it vandalism when the KKK burns down a black church? (n/t)

[LeftyMom]

68. Are you seriously comparing the ELF to the KKK?

:wow:

[PVnRT]

78. Both use intimidation tactics to get their agenda across

The only difference being that ELF hasn't been hanging people in the woods.

I guess, however, threats and intimidation aren't really terrorist in nature, so long as you agree with the overall goal, according to DU.

[Downtown Hound]

88. Agreeing with the overall goal has nothing to do with it

It's a question of whether or not there was either physical harm to anybody involved or an intent to cause such harm, either by the action in question or another at a future date.

[LeftyMom]

90. One works to stop ecocidal behavior, the other attacks people based on their innate traits.

That's a pretty big difference.

[Downtown Hound]

75. Arson.

And I will also add, the KKK has a proven history of violence that goes way beyond destruction of property. In that sense, they are definitely terrorists.

[Journeyman]

70. That's an asinine excuse, an attitude beneath contempt . . .

Sterling Hall was blown up on the UW-Madison campus in 1970 in protest of the war and an army research center's presence in the Hall. The bomb was only intended to destroy the Hall; that's why it was set off in the early morning hours, so no people would be hurt. Only Richard Fassnacht was working late that night, conducting experiments on superconductivity unrelated to any military contract. Perhaps you can explain the "just property damage" rationale to Fassnacht's widow.

I mention this to illustrate that when fires are set and explosives rigged that destroy university buildings, commercial properties, and residential developments (as ELF has done over the years and for which they take public responsibility), with resultant damages in the tens of millions, with entire buildings and developments destroyed, that no lives have been lost is attributable more to good fortune than precise planning.

Destructive violence for the purpose of persuasion is terror. There's nothing complex about this concept, though I suspect it's a little too much for someone to grasp who justifies it with a flippant dismissal and a silly patriotic smiley.

[LeftyMom]

73. Careful planning is a good thing.

Throwing in the UW-Madison arson is a red herring, it predates the ELF and thus has nothing to do with actions undertaken according to that movement's guidelines. And the results of those guidelines speak for themselves: nobody's ever been hurt in an ELF action.

[Journeyman]

82. Damn, you're right. No one's been hurt in a fire or explosion since 1970. . .

What "guidelines" are you babbling about? Has ELF published an Anarchist Cookbook as a guide against accidents and the unforeseen? Do they employ "safe and sane" explosives and fires that won't hurt the emergency responders who arrive to put out the flames?

I'll repeat: Your rationale -- your very thought -- is beneath contempt. At least be intellectually honest. Accept that violence begets violence, that once unleashed primal forces (fire and the like) can and will do as they please, despite the most careful plans, and at least then your defense of extreme behavior will be grounded in reality and not dependent on pie-in-the-sky denial. Shit. You sit in your safe home, pecking away at a keyboard, dotting your inanities with little smilies and babbling cliches you neither understand nor can defend, all the while "playing at revolution" and defending your smugness with the obtuse denials of the possible (indeed, the probable).

What drivel.

[Downtown Hound]

89. Speaking only for myself, I agree that violence begets violence

And I don't agree with arson or any other kind of property damage as an effective or viable protest tactic under most circumstances. It's the question of whether or not it's terrorism that many people, including myself, question.

[LeftyMom]

92. If you don't know what the guidelines are, you really have no business having this conversation.

Because that's really all the ELF is. There's no structure, no membership, just a goal and a loose set of guidelines about how to go about it.

You can figure that out with five minutes of reading.

As for your insistence that people whose actual behavior has proved they're quite committed to not hurting anybody, based on the behavior of entirely different organizations that predate them, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than one about your own ignorance.

[Journeyman]

96. What is it about the definition of the word "accident" that you find so difficult?

But you go ahead, dig your head deeper, play at being a hard case. Maybe you can find a smiley that expresses your "revolutionary spirit." I'll trouble you no more as you're definitely not worth the trouble.

[Downtown Hound]

9. Ever since the end of the 60's

How many left wing terrorist groups can anybody name? I've asked right wingers this question before, and the answer they always come up with are ELF, Earth First, PETA, and moveon. Have any of those organizations killed anybody? ELF has committed arson, and Earth First has committed civil disobedience and tree spiking, but killed anybody? Not to my knowledge. The only person I can think of that might qualify is The Unabomber, and he wasn't so much left wing as he was anti-technology.

And then there's the Black Bloc, which isn't liberal but anarchist, but all they've ever done is knock over newsstands and break a few windows.

By contrast, right wingers can claim Timothy McVeigh, a whole host of abortion clinic murders, white supremacist killings, a number of foiled terrorist plots, a number of standoffs with police that ended violently (Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind, and the guy that walked into that liberal church and killed those people). Yep, the left sure is violent huh? Yet who actually gets charged with terrorism? The RNC 8, who were charged with Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism, in spite of the fact that they were all in jail when the riot in question happened.

[ensho]

10. tell the media to "prove it" or shut up

nt

[Spoonman]

12. Have you ever heard of "tree spiking"?

The FBI has added Marin County animal rights extremist Daniel Andreas San Diego to its "Most Wanted Terrorists" list for bombing two Bay Area biotech firms.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/tersandiego_da.htm

Read your history books, this time pay close attention to the chapters covering the late 60's.

[redqueen]

20. And what happened to the left after the late 60's?

The worm turns.

[RandomKoolzip]

22. As I recall: harder drugs, addiction, malaise, COINTELPRO, apathy, co-option, etc.

[redqueen]

23. I was thinking more

of how the public's opinion soured on the entire movement. Of course, that was aided by the mighty wurlitzer of the M$M, but I still think a similar opportunity exists here.

[Chemical Bill]

101. Yeah but...

corporate media agrees with the right-wingnuts (see swift boaters) and disagrees with the moderates and liberals (see health care). They don't even mention the far left. The public's opinion is very much shaped by the information which they have access to.

As I remember it, anti-war and anti-government demonstrations were huge well into the '70, and in fact the biggest demonstration I ever took part in was the anti-nuke NYC rally years after the Vietnam War ended. I don't think that the public's opinion of the goals of the left soured, but the portrayal of the left by the media was overtaken by the corporate image makers during the '70s.

The corporate media will not stand for public disapproval of the corporate powers that be, and right-wing terrorism is an aid to those PTB, in everything from selling guns to distracting us from reasonable policy goals (again, see health care).

Bill

[kentuck]

14. Right. It is the left-wingers that are buying up all the guns.

They like to spread all the blame equally, whether it is true or not.

[Spoonman]

17. Try again,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5825452&mesg_id=5825452

[RandomKoolzip]

21. Or:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/13/guns-nra-america-obama-virginia

http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/04/29/guns-barack-obama-paranoia-who-is-tyrannizing-who/


Both of these articles date from before the Holocaust Museum shooting.

[Spoonman]

25. Better yet,

I'll stick with the facts, and an experts opinion... mine!

You see I'm in the business (shooting supplies).

I have seen a HUGE increase in purchases by minorities.
Those same minorities that statistically vote Democrat.

Additionally
Before the election, I never saw one single Democratic Party campaign shirt enter my store, I see 5-7 Obama shirts and the same number a bumper stickers in my parking lot DAILY!!!!!!!!!!

But go ahead and believe what you read, after all, most "intelligent" people do.

[RandomKoolzip]

34. So anecdotal evidence trumps statistics?

Do you honestly believe that your personal and isolated example is uniform and/or representative across the country? Are all those news reports and online articles documenting increased gun and ammo sales by right-wingers just made up?

I'm just kinda baffled by this discussion at this point.

[Spoonman]

52. You obviously don't know

what anecdotal evidence is.
You see I am seeing numbers that can be tracked, with a direct link to my purchasers political affiliation. That is statistics 101.

The statistics you reference are where?

I did not read anything scientific in either of the articles you linked, or ANY article I have EVER read regarding this subject matter that provided any scientific evidence of political affiliation to a gun purchaser.

How did they get the "statistics" that you refer to?
There is no questionnaire of political affiliation that is filled out at the time of purchase.

So I guess it is nothing more than the writers cognitive bias that only right wingers are buying firearms and ammunition.

Therefore, it is you that is providing "anecdotal evidence" in this matter.

I will forgive your blatant lack of knowledge this time.

[TahitiNut]

19. Nothing since the SLA, afaik.

:shrug:

[unc70]

24. On KO last night, (?) Levin spoke of anti-semites on right and on left

I forget the first name of Levin, described as an expert on domestic terrorism, who described as anti-semitic those who criticize Israeli actions wrt the Palestinians. He justified that because Jews who personally opposed the Israeli actions had been criticized just because they were Jews.

I see that reasoning to be a bit of a reach. Annoying, yes! Much more of the level of project experienced by us liberals in the South.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. He also said it is world wide

and given that some Jews have been attacked both here and abroad because they are well JEWS, that is terror

[unc70]

Levine made extra effort to link pro Palestinian with anti-Semitic

That point did not come up naturally in the interview.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. But it is a real point that people who have been following this for years have noticed

we have a healthy anti-Semitism that has emerged in the left as well.

I have noticed it too...

And yes, just because I am a jew I automatically support Israel, yes been told this IN PERSON by a former friend who is otherwise very progressive.

Two reasons, I do not associate with anti-semites, and I did tell this person as much.

And I do not automatically support Israel.

This is a real experience... and it is a not so warm or fuzzy to be on the shit list of both sides for different reasons mind you, but still on the shit list.

[unc70]

76. Does someone assuming that you, a Jew, supports Israel make them an anti-semite?

I see that kind of assumption as annoying and wrong, but I do not see it automatically branding those holding it as being anti-semites.

When limited to just that level, I see it more like those regarding Southerners or the ones expecting regular churchgoers to be pro-war (rather than the opposite among "main stream" groups such as Methodists).

BTW part of my immediate family is Jewish so I have some understanding from their viewpoint.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. When it includes things such as YOU JEWSS

control the US government, and always support Israel, yes, that is anti-Semitism by definition,

He included other lovely things such as we also control the damn media when it comes to Israel, and damn it, we all are right wing.

So that day I said my good byes and recommended he stop readying things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Yes, that is where some of that crap comes straight from

[unc70]

93. If someone assumed that an African American supported Obama, would that make them a racist?

I would not see that the Obama assumption nor the the Israel assumption would alone be enough.

In some circles, any criticism of Israel is enough to trigger the anti-semite claim. You appear not to share that view.

By definition (the European one), criticism of Israel and its actions at levels comparable to that of other countries is not anti-semitism.

Would a claim that AIPAC exerts too much influence and power in Washington be considered anti-semitic?

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Among some circles yes, why the J street project is alive and well

most American Jews hold very little in common with AIPAC by the way.

But yes, this particular fella is quite anti-Semitic, and that is the pattern that Professor Levin was speaking to. The kind that is rising in progressive circles, Be aware because it does exist. And it could become quite virulent, Hell, after 9.11 you found people on BOTH sides of the aisle in the US, and abroad, claiming htat the Israelis were behind this with the usual crap about all them Jews staying home. That was the first obvious time when both progressives and righties shared a cookie view.

Now my personal view to the IP issue, at this point we should just let them deal with it and throw away the key if they can't. My view... if you want to participate in the mess, move there... and that goes for both sides. I share that with a Palestinian partner of mine that I shared many an emergency call with as a young medic. We went in with the usual perceptions, and after exchanging quite a bit of propaganda, produced by both sides, we concluded that was exactly what needed to happen.

Is the term over used....yes... go to the IP forum.

[omega minimo]

30. Perhaps mere mention of "all the excesses of the the 60's and the 70's" sets some folks off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 election was different.

"I mean I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that ya know Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.

"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like you know with all the excesses of the the 60's and the 70's and ya know government had grown and grown and but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it's operating...

"And I think people just tapped in... he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want ya know a return to that sense of dynamism and ya know entrepreneurship that had been missing."

[PVnRT]

62. I see you're still pimping this nonsense (n/t)

[omega minimo]

105. I see, whoever you are, you're still missing the point.

Always so lovely to get a bullshit post like this from someone I've never seen before.

:hi: :think: I won't point out the obvious, b/c you refuse to think.

btw. If I had wanted to "pimp this nonsense" -- i.e. piss off a lot of folk who would rather attack than think and discuss -- I could have kicked my thread which was magically unlocked. I chose not to.

This post is relevant to this issue and this thread. Deal with it. :kick:

[undeterred]

35. Quakers and Socialists

And especially Quaker Socialists. :bounce:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Are they stuck in the 1970s?

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

106. Thank you. The snarker above missed the concept.

[flvegan]

47. The "far left groups" that I think we're talking about do economic damage.

To the media and the right, money matters more than people.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is proof positive of that.

[izzybeans]

55. Yep but how active have they been since the late 90s?

In college when I was living in Bloomington Indiana the ALF or ELF firebombed two developments, a chicken truck, and spiked trees in an area of forest marked for logging. All this happened in a compact amount of time, mid 90s to 1999.

The only thing they killed in Indiana was a truckload of chickens (or at least that was the joke at the time). But loggers would have been killed had the spikes not been found. I haven't heard of ALF since.

[flvegan]

65. First, lets not bleed these two alleged groups in together.

Second, I have no idea how active the ALF has been since the late 90s. I'm sure that a little bit of research might have you stumbling across a website that lists actions received via communique in the name of animal liberation. Short of sinking a whaling vessel or two, nothing as media worthy as the actions you mentioned by the ELF.

Lastly, to not focus on just the ALF and the ELF, look up the SHAC7. A group of animal rights (I dare lump them in with any ALF, since I don't think they've claimed such) activists are in jail due to the AETA. Read about their work against Huntingdon Life Sciences, and I think you'll see activity. Not "burning down a subdivision" worthy headlines, but activity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. The guys who used to put spikes in trees

and those who burned housing projects for the Earth.

They are just as extreme and small, and yes to a point dangerous. Just that in the recent past they have been quite dormant.

ELF... look it up.

[OwnedByFerrets]

56. Thom Hartmann has dedicated much of his show to

this premise. "Far left groups" want to change the world. "Far right groups" want to harm those who are not like they are.

[Cha]

67. Exactly..Was Timothy McVeigh far left?

The Unibomber? Roeder,Von Bron?

Here's a story on the rise of rw hate in America..

"The Chilling Rise of Right-Wing Hate in America"

<snip>
"Crooks and Liars posted new details about the right-wing psychopath who gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh:"

<more>>>>
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/4/5/16241/80188

[bdamomma]

57. do people on the left go into a church and shoot people?

or gun down a Dr.?

[BuyingThyme]

63. I guess they're referring to those tanks in China.

[ProudDad]

64. Socialists are Dangerous

Socialismo is winning in certain parts of the world...

That scares the crap out of the Korporate Kapitalist Masters...

So they call us "terrorists".

[Baikonour]

69. Leftist terror groups? This isn't the 60's.

Meanwhile, right wing terrorist groups are still active today.

[G_j]

74. premeditated murder

a most vivid example being Timothy McVeigh,


has anyone seen any leftist McVieghs?

I don't think so

[Catherine Vincent]

77. It's complete bullshit. nt

[MadHound]

81. There have been some,

But nowhere near the severity or level of violence, certainly not in the past few years.

I can think of the Weathermen, the SLA, the Unibomber, ALF and ELF, and that's about it. However nothing on the scale of, oh, say, Timothy McVeigh.

[clear eye]

91. Just curious--which media groups

are you alluding to?

[Puzzler]

94. This is a pure Rovian tactic...

... get a lot of buzz going in the MSM about the far left being just as dangerous as the far right, thereby effectively neutralizing (in the eyes of Joe-Sixpack) much of the legitimate concerns over right wing terrorism.

No surprise at all, they always do this, and they always will get a way with it... as long as the "fair and balanced" MSM goes along with this.

[quaker bill]

99. Not here, at least since the 1960s

It has been nearly 40 years. ELF and ALF do cause some poorly considered property damage on occasion, and a few anarchists caused a bit of damage during the WTO protests.

What you don't see on the left is bombing of facilities, or the olympic games, or attempts to assasinate folks. A few broken windows on occasion, but none, even at the height in the 1960s ever brought down a federal building.

We, on the left, are simply not skilled or motivated to learn such things.

Of course there are always us Quakers, who apparently need to be followed by the DOD, because we might pass out peace flyers in from of military recruiters or hold a potluck supper at any moment....

[Chemical Bill]

102. "Far left" exposure of corporate and government malfeseance...

is at least as dangerous as killing, to some people.

Bill

[bermudat]

103. Yesterday, Chris Mathews repeated many times that Lee Harvey Oswald was

far Left. I have never heard that.

[Dramarama]

109. How many conservatives have been assassinated

in comparison to liberals in America