Violent rallies were feared

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Sat, Jun. 19, 2004

WAR ON TERRORISM


Violent rallies were feared

BY JAY COHEN
Associated Press


A Joint Terrorism Task Force warned law enforcement officials in Fort Lauderdale and three other cities about threats of violent rallies and demonstrations by environmental and hate groups over the past two weekends, an FBI agent said Friday.

Frank Perry, the supervisory senior resident agent in charge of the FBI's Raleigh-Durham office in North Carolina, said the threats also involved Raleigh and Greensboro, N.C., and a fourth city that he couldn't recall.

No such demonstrations ever materialized, though Perry said the task force is still concerned about future attacks.
(snip)

The task force found plans for the demonstrations on websites and online message boards containing ''some rather cryptic, some specific call to arms to rally and engage in violent acts,'' Perry said.
(snip/)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/8961142.htm

:eyes: :eyes:

[FlemingsGhost]

1. The pearl is in the river. Richard has a long moustache.

666 miles 'til Crawford.

(That oughta keep 'em busy for a while ...)

:evilgrin:

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

2. "Environmental and hate groups"?

So much in common. Those evil environmentalists are just downright hateful towards nice corporate entities.

[BushHater2004]

3. I mean who cares if we car bomb an SUV

They deserved it anyways :)

[CharlesGroce]

4. that's a really stupid thing to say

and you should shut your mouth. I mean, most (if not all) of the environmental groups protesting are and intend to be peaceful. And here you are propogating the media manufactured idea that they must be terrorist.

So dumb.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

5. Sarcasm must be too subtle for you

[CharlesGroce]

8. I don't think it's sarcasm

sounds like an idiot to me. And if that was meant to be sarcasm, then maybe that individual who has only posted 9 posts should have given some indication that he was being sarcasting. Like: oh that's what an idiot freeper would come on here and say, just to marginalize the groups who aren't also hate groups. See, sarcasm needs indicators to be sarcasm. Like the tone of voice. Or here, perhaps a little explaination.

[Just Me]

6. Unbelievable. Either brainwashed or brainwashing.

Take your pick.

Who want to exaggerate events to cover-up both reality and motivations?

Not me.

[thebigidea]

9. nothing quite as charming as a low post count type using the royal "we"

Weeeeee are not amused.

[Cat Atomic]

12. Ooh... infiltrating the liberal internet HQ!

How exciting for you.

I'm sure you'll quote your own bullshit later, on a more... Republican-friendly site.

If you can't find evidence to back up your own "liberal terrorist" beliefs, why not create it yourself, right?

The problem with you guys is, you aren't sharp enough to pull this shit off for more than 20 posts or so.

[CharlesGroce]

13. BushHater2004 EXPOSED!

Do a search on his posts. This guy is garbage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=631435

He just goes around randomly posting what he considers to be clever one liners which are in fact, as shown here, completely transparent. Bet he's a middle school history teacher or something. Thinks that just because he teaches history in a middle school, he's some authority on contemporary events.

[disinfo_guy]

7. is it wrong to discriminate against a person just because they are a

corporate person? Is this discrimination against Corporate-Americans?

[CharlesGroce]

10. well that depends on what you consider a corporate person...

and discrimination in its hateful form is always wrong. And it's wrong to dehumanize groups of people for any reason.

But if the person in question is, say, a member of a contracting company charged with performing illegal torture and executions in Iraq, yeah I'd say you could discriminate against the person as an evil asshole who should go to jail.

[skooooo]

11. No, "discrimination" in the classic sense of the word,

very much has a place in civil society. We better be very discriminating in who we choose to support. We have a right to discriminate against people who, through their conscious choices and decisions, are harming our interests in a substantive, tangible way.

Discrimination is wrong when you use it to hurt people who have no choice in what they are or what they do (and I'm not so sure there's much case for the latter, since we have free will). In this context, discriminating against someone because of their race or sexual inclinations is, indeed, wrong. Discriminating against corporate executives who are screwing our world and our future is fair game, in my book.

How exactly you would ever have the power to discriminate against such people is another question.

[CharlesGroce]

14. yes yes everyone 'discriminates' between one thing and another

but that's not what he/she/it meant.