Right Wing Warning???

[Toome]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

 

[Just A Man]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

Excellent summary!!!

 

[Ravi]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

Economic damage is just a nuisance? If you say so.

You seem to be upset that the left wing extremists tend to be less violent toward humans and more toward buildings and economic systems. Not sure how I can help you out. It is what it is.

 

[Immanuel]

The Department of Homeland Security will never monitor ideology or political beliefs, the head of the agency said Wednesday, responding to criticism of a recent report on right-wing extremist groups.

Does this make anyone else feel like they are already doing it? Does anyone really believe what Mrs. Napolitano is saying? The Bush Admin assured us that they did not condone torturing prisoners. Yet, that was precisely what they were doing.

If a politician says they are not going to do something, you can damn well bet they are already doing it, or have plans to begin doing so immediately.

Immie

 

[tigerbob]

The Department of Homeland Security will never monitor ideology or political beliefs, the head of the agency said Wednesday, responding to criticism of a recent report on right-wing extremist groups.

Does this make anyone else feel like they are already doing it? Does anyone really believe what Mrs. Napolitano is saying? The Bush Admin assured us that they did not condone torturing prisoners. Yet, that was precisely what they were doing.

If a politician says they are not going to do something, you can damn well bet they are already doing it, or have plans to begin doing so immediately.

Immie

Of course they'll continue to monitor ideology and political beliefs. It's almost insulting for the DHS to say this.

 

[Immanuel]

The Department of Homeland Security will never monitor ideology or political beliefs, the head of the agency said Wednesday, responding to criticism of a recent report on right-wing extremist groups.

Does this make anyone else feel like they are already doing it? Does anyone really believe what Mrs. Napolitano is saying? The Bush Admin assured us that they did not condone torturing prisoners. Yet, that was precisely what they were doing.

If a politician says they are not going to do something, you can damn well bet they are already doing it, or have plans to begin doing so immediately.

Immie

Of course they'll continue to monitor ideology and political beliefs. It's almost insulting for the DHS to say this.

Almost? Now that is an understatement!

Immie

 

[ItsFairmont]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

I guess you conveniently forgot about Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, along with Theodore Kazinski and the two attacks on the Whitehouse (one with a gun and one with an airplane).

All of this happened during a Democratic Administration.


Left wingers talk crazy.

Right wingers ACT crazy.

 

[Truthmatters]

It seems to me we have alreay had children killed by the right wing.

I know its going to happen again too.

I truely wish I could prevent it somehow.

I guess that is just adking too much of the conservatives to watch how they frame their issues as to not inflame the crazies on the right.

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

I guess you conveniently forgot about Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, along with Theodore Kazinski and the two attacks on the Whitehouse (one with a gun and one with an airplane).

All of this happened during a Democratic Administration.


Left wingers talk crazy.

Right wingers ACT crazy.

ok, but there are a lot MORE crazy left wingers
and they also DO act
Bill Ayers anyone?

 

[Just A Man]

The Bush Admin assured us that they did not condone torturing prisoners. Yet, that was precisely what they were doing. -- Immie

It's amazing to me that the terrorists can cut off several innocent prisoner's heads and video tape it to show the world. Then the Bush Admn waterboards only three terrorists prisoners (with medical personnel standing by) captured on the battlefield to collect info to stop future terrorists acts and look at which one that gets all the attention from the world.

All U.S. citizens should be grateful the Bush Admn did waterboard. It just might have saved the life of one of their family members. You can bet your socks if we polled the people who lost family in the 9-11 attacks would they endorse waterboarding if it could have prevented those attacks they would all be in favor of it.

Never let anyone think for you.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh Ravi,
Those groups in Wikipedia are like 70s groups. Seems noone is courageous enough these days to stand up to the government in a radical way.

Janet what's her name is over reacting and playing the big government part over exuberantly. Guess she needs to feel some level of self importance, heh?

She needs to go. We need level heads in DHS. Don't ya think?

It's funny, I pointed out a least a million times that you guys weren't going to like the Department of Homeland Security when a Democrat took over. Giving Bush so much power has come back to bite you in the butt.

Instead of crying and whining that someone made a connection between disgruntled vets and acts of violence why don't you put your efforts in to examining how we treat vets, why they are disgruntled, and helping them overcome their disgruntlement (IF they need the help)? Or would you prefer to continue using them as political tools?

I didn't like it then, and still don't like it no matter who is in charge. Though from a financial perspective more than anything. It's just another organization which specializes in something we already have a few capable of handling as it is, thus a waste of money.

 

[DiveCon]

It seems to me we have alreay had children killed by the right wing.

I know its going to happen again too.

I truely wish I could prevent it somehow.

I guess that is just adking too much of the conservatives to watch how they frame their issues as to not inflame the crazies on the right.

another lie
look at all the children killed by the left daily
to the tune of 1.5 MILLION a year

 

[Truthmatters]

The total of people killed by right wing crazies out number some of the tea bag evernts the other day.

 

[Annie]

The total of people killed by right wing crazies out number some of the tea bag evernts the other day.

You do have a link, right?

 

[eots]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

I guess you conveniently forgot about Timothy McVeigh

you mean like the FBI ? the CIA..the ATF....but hell who cares about reality...when you got
offical fabels



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck13yfbOXdQ[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6vrep7k9g[/ame]

 

[KittenKoder]

It seems to me we have alreay had children killed by the right wing.

I know its going to happen again too.

I truely wish I could prevent it somehow.

I guess that is just adking too much of the conservatives to watch how they frame their issues as to not inflame the crazies on the right.

another lie
look at all the children killed by the left daily
to the tune of 1.5 MILLION a year

I would contend that, I don't see killing as a political factor, nor is there any accurate way of determining which is to blame for what. All people who kill without just reasons are just nuts, period.

 

[DiveCon]

It seems to me we have alreay had children killed by the right wing.

I know its going to happen again too.

I truely wish I could prevent it somehow.

I guess that is just adking too much of the conservatives to watch how they frame their issues as to not inflame the crazies on the right.

another lie
look at all the children killed by the left daily
to the tune of 1.5 MILLION a year

I would contend that, I don't see killing as a political factor, nor is there any accurate way of determining which is to blame for what. All people who kill without just reasons are just nuts, period.

but to truthnevermatters thats all she can see
if there is some way she can twist it so that she can claim it was a conservative, she'll do it
sorry, but that goes against everything most conservatives believe in
its people like HER that piss people off on all spectrums of political ideologies

 

[Gunny]

This is likely to piss off some people, but putting a woman in charge of HS, the agency charged with securing the homeland, was a dumb idea. Men tend mostly respond to facts and logic and have a guarding instinct, women tend to respond more often to emotion and feelings and a negotiation instinct.

No man holding that job would have even allowed the kind of thinking expressed with this flap. If it happened anyway, the apology would have been phrased differently and he would have made it a point to speak directly to the men in uniform.

I'm sorry she apologized at all, she had no reason to...but she didn't because she is a woman, she did it because she's a Dem.

Dream on.

 

[Toome]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

Economic damage is just a nuisance? If you say so.

You seem to be upset that the left wing extremists tend to be less violent toward humans and more toward buildings and economic systems. Not sure how I can help you out. It is what it is.

LOL. Read the report and draw your own conclusions.

As for violence, anyone is capable of committing it in the name of something they believe in, or at least rationalize it. Left, right, doesn't matter.

That, my friend, is reality.

 

[Toome]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Here's the difference:

The right wing extremism warning speaks in very broad, general terms speculating not only that there may be attacks but that returning war veterans pose a potential threat. It presumes that returning combat veterans have a likelihood of joining these fringe elements with the specific intent of conducting acts of terrorism against government facilities. The DHS reports clearly states that there is no specific indication of an attack. It's all speculation.

The left wing extremism warning names specific groups with an established history of conducting malicious cyber acts. These are non-violent acts.

Left wing extremists portrayed as a nuisance. Right wing extremists portrayed as a clear and present danger. Left wing extremist report based on a specific history of previous events. Right wing extremist report based on a bunch of "what-if" speculation.

Anyone who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front, the Internet Liberation Front or is a Hacktivist are suspects in the left wing report. Anyone who believes that the government is wastefully spending taxpayer money, or anyone who opposes gun control legislation, or anyone who believes that more serious measures are needed to fight illegal immigration, or any returning combat veteran are suspects in the right wing report.

I guess you conveniently forgot about Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, along with Theodore Kazinski and the two attacks on the Whitehouse (one with a gun and one with an airplane).

All of this happened during a Democratic Administration.


Left wingers talk crazy.

Right wingers ACT crazy.

Set your cardboard cutouts down for a sec.

McVeigh was a member of an obscure anti-government movement. Had nothing to do with his military background or combat tour in Iraq. The military did not make him a terrorist. He chose to become a terrorist and used everything at his disposal, including his military background, to further his goals.

Rudolph and Kazinski were murderers. Sure, Rudolph claimed that he killed in the name of some cause or as a measure of protest; however, pretty hard to prove it when there aren't others who are in that same movement. There was no terrorist group that Rudolph was a member of that sought to bomb abortion clinics or Centennial Olympic Park. Same goes for Kazinski who acted alone. He wasn't part of a domestic terrorist group that sought out victims.

You are blurring the lines that distinguish criminal acts and terrorism. If you would bother to read the actual DHS report on rightwing activity, it specifically uses the term "terrorism," a term Napolitano has gone on record as saying she would never use when describing the violence committed by foreign extremists, yet she uses it to describe American citizens.

And just to set the record straight: I do not deny that there are wackos out there who will resort to violence as a way to achieve some sort of goal. But the DHS report casts a very wide net with descriptions that essentially apply to anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies.