Hate Mail


Contact Us


Hate Mail - 2007 Disclaimer:
We reserve the right to print any email that we receive.
We make no corrections for grammar or spelling.

Our Commentary is in Red.

Updated 14 December 2007

14 December 2007

Jessica Troisi wrote:

F*ck you all! You'll never never understand the courageous actions of PETA and ALF because you're a bunch of ignorant f*cks. lol, keep trying though :)

You sound very angry and full of hate. It seems that you cannot put together a sentence without resorting to the use of profanity. That is what people do when they have no facts or ideas. Your entire e-mail to us was nothing but a collection of personal attacks and insults. You have nothing else. You have no facts at all. In fact, you do not even challenge our facts. You are so full of emotions you cannot even think straight. From the first word of your e-mail, your entire letter is nothing but a display of ignorance.

We understand PeTA and the ALF very well. We have documented their actions and you have not disputed a single word on this website.

There are so many ways you could have written us, but how do you start... you begin with insults. You have no facts whatsoever. But really, what facts could you have? You cannot dispute the actions of the ALF. You cannot dispute the support the PeTA gives the ALF. You cannot dispute the record of PeTA and their atrocious record on placing pets into good homes after they promise to do so.

What courageous actions are you referring to? So far, you have not presented one example. How many people from PeTA or the ALF have ever stood up against anyone that is guilty of engaging in dog fighting? We can tell you... NONE... How cowardly is it to break into someone's home in the middle of the night when they are not home and burn it down or cause damage to it by flooding it with a garden hose? These are the actions of cowards... plain and simple. They think they are so courageous. They even wear masks when no one is home... Yep... These people ARE cowards by every definition of the word. There is nothing courageous about these people and with this e-mail you represent them very well.


18 November 2007

muu01f@*********.uk wrote:

Yours is quite a useful website for us people who believe that animals have rights. It points out the illogical bigotry that we are up against.

We are certainly glad to help. It is our pleasure to list the many terrorist acts that so many of the so called "peaceful" animal rights activists have to share with the world. The hate that is displayed in the attacks and violence of the animal rights crowd are clear for all to see. We are accurately present this information on this website. We especially like the many quotes from many of the leadership of the animal rights activists that we have collected that show their true nature as displayed in the editorial entitled "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement". Here it is easy to see the hate and violence that is the basis for the modern day animal rights movement. If you have not read it, please take a few moments to acquaint yourself with their true nature.

Unfortunately, the animal rights movement is not what it seems. Activists today have perverted once-sensible animal welfare goals by adopting a philosophy that places animals ahead of human beings and employing "by any means necessary" tactics to achieve their goals of "total animal liberation." This can be seen in the quotes from the animal rights leadership in the above editorial.

The goal of the animal rights movement is to place unnecessary restrictions on ordinary people. Today's activists want to force everyone to become vegans and wear nothing but cotton, rayon, and rubber. They want to ban hunting, fishing, zoos, rodeos, and pet ownership. They even want to outlaw the use of animals in the search for cures for AIDS, Parkinson's Disease, and cancer. And a growing number are busy taking the law into their hands and resorting to violent crime.

The fact is animals do not have "rights" in the same context as we humans do. They are not citizens, they are not humans. A right, unlike an interest, is a valid claim, or potential claim, made by a moral agent, under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of that claim. Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is human. Animals do not have the capacity to make moral claims. Since animals have no capacity to make moral claims, animals do not have rights.

This is not to say that we as humans do not have a duty to animals. We do and we show it every day with the care we extend toward our pets, zoo animals, and farm animals, but that duty falls far short of extending the same rights to animals that we as humans have.

And thanks again for taking the time to visit our website.


15 November 2007

Gabriel Jones wrote:

I was browsing around for information on ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and it's spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh.  Your site helped me considerably, especially since you had direct quotes from him.

We are accurate with the information we present on the website.

Continual browsing of the site caught my attention of other areas.  All in all, i can tell that you are in general a Republican publication.  Liberals have no place with you and your standpoint seems to be one sided and not open to other views.  I hope your information that you receive is true and not filtered through the media which is owned by Ted Turner and Rockefeller.  I appreciate your view of capitalism, where people do work to pull there own weight; the only problem is that we don't live in a capitalistic society.  We are told in school that we are, and we are even convinced by the media that we are, but sadly we are mistaken.

It is not so much that we are a "Republican" publication, but rather a Conservative voice. You are totally incorrect that Liberals have no place in this website. They absolutely do have a place here! And we present their views unedited and in their entirety. E-mails are printed exactly as they are received as can be viewed on our "Hate Mail" pages. We quote Liberals verbatim in the context that they speak. You saw this in the direct quotes we have on Craig Rosebraugh. You seem to have incorrectly assumed that because we offer an opinion of their actions and rhetoric that our viewpoint is closed to others that may not share the same views. We have clearly shown both sides. The information we have on the website is true and accurate. However, if you do see something that is incorrect or inaccurate, please let us know and we will make the necessary correction immediately. And we are sorry to disagree with you, but we do live in a Capitalist society. We get blamed for it every day.

This country has its roots in capitalism, with that i agree, but there should also come into question the true people that were on the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria.  The majority of the people on those ships were slaves.  The majority of the building of the union was based on slaves; and even then any action taken was only given to those that were rich, male, and white.  You may counter by saying, "No, the voting process was for those that were land owners."  I would agree with this statement, but who were the land owners?  The answer would be rich, male, and white.  Women couldn't vote, neither could people of color, and if you didn't own land you were either a share-cropper (middle-class *the new poor, or poor *the new poverty).  Laws were created to protect those interests that the rich had.  This has continued on through out the history of the U.S. Even during the Great Depression, the only ones that truly made it out of there without getting hurt were the rich.  The very same people that rule the U.S. today.

We seem to be at a disadvantage here as we do not remember in our history that majority of the people on Christopher Columbus' ships, the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria were slaves as they were not slave ships.

As far as your statement that "the majority of the building of the union was based on slaves..." we are going to have to disagree with you. Only the States in the South were slave states and the majority of them worked on plantations where cotton was the product. Mills in the north did not have slaves and the workers that were in the mills were not ex-slaves, they were mostly white males. There has been a lot of building in the United States and the majority was not placed on the backs of slaves as so many would want us to believe. It was placed on the backs of those that worked so as to support their families.

You use the term "rich, male, and white" as some sort of negative stereotype. Someone was needed to make the country grow. And the people that were in the best position to do so happened to be educated white males of European descent.

The laws of 200 years ago are not the same laws we live under today. There have been many changes in the system of a new country with a revolutionary new concept of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. You should not be living 200 years in the past.

Laws were passed to protect all. Northern states saw that early on and abolished slavery. President Lincoln, a Republican, gave former slaves the right to vote at the end of the Civil War. You will make note that the politicians that took that right away were Southern Democrats.

You seem to be hooked on a class envy mentality. Have you forgotten about the New Deal where relief was given to those that were poor and unemployed? Jobs were created. Projects were built. But that is not really want turned around the depression. Those were government backed jobs that did not really create growth as much as they put people to work and gave them a sense of worth. It was the outbreak of World War II and the industry of war. The building tanks, airplanes, and all the other weapons of war that saved America... and the world. Again, it was the "rich white males" that lead industry. Private enterprise and corporations that made America the financial world power it was at the end of the war. Everyone bought houses, new automobiles and everything else that represented a higher standard of living.

That brings us to another factor that you do not seem to understand. "Rich people" can only make money if they hire others to jobs. This is normally called employment. You seem to think that all "rich people" got that way by cheating the system. People are getting richer every day. It could be that the people that are getting poorer are getting that way due to a poor work ethic brought upon them by entitlements such as welfare that does not help their situation, but harms them. They have a lack of motivation to improve their situation because they have become dependent on some entitlement. Wanting a better life is a pretty good motivation to work and improve one's situation. Accepting the life you have is not.

I came across your article where the teacher made the comment about America being terrorists.  There was also your comment about socialism and liberals.  Now i do believe that socialism walks the fine line of communism, a couple of power hunger people in the ruling sector and everyone is driving a Volkswagen, and farming in their backyard so they can contribute to the rest of the country.  Now the argument can be made that communism is the better government strategy; whereas funds are divided equally, everyone has a job, the military is strong, economy is constantly moving forward- this all looks good on paper, but sadly the human factor has not come into point.  Capitalism also walks the fine line of oligarchy, and plutocracy- or in some cases a monarchy.  Our government at the current moment is an oligarchy ruling a plutocracy.  The rich get richer and the poor get nothing.

What do you mean that the poor get nothing? First of all, they get an education at no cost. Many of them choose to dropout and lead a life of failure. That is their choice. If you want to discuss the quality of the educational system with us, we will be happy to bring your attention to the NEA and tenure. There are millionaires made every day of every race, religion, and gender. But alright, whom do you want to lead the country, the poorest of the poor that have little to no education? That argument about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor has very little to do with the government, other than the tax burden, and rather the choices that people make that may not be smart decisions. There is a personal responsibility factor to consider.

In your model of socialism you have the leeches of society, yet the U.S. as an industrial nation has one of the highest populations of poor people.  Mind you "industrial" nation was said, any counter point using a peripheral or third world country would not count.  The margin is astounding of rich compared to poor here.  We put money into housing projects, we try to create more jobs, we try to give so much to the needy, yet for some reason it just doesn't do any good. I will agree that there are abusers of all kinds, i.e. welfare, tax fraud/evasion, identity theft; these are the leeches, yet they are abundant in our society also.  Why would this be the case?

That is a very good point. If you have two people, one of them is going to be richer than the other, one will make better decisions that the other, and one will work harder than the other.

"Capitalism allows for an ever increasing standard by which success is measured. Socialism, on the other hand, allows for an ever increasing standard of dependency."

If you look at many of the programs, you can see the problem right in front of you. Housing projects are nothing more, for the most part, than a breeding ground for crime. If you do not believe this, then wait until they decide to build one next to your house. Money is thrown at problems without following up with a plan. The projects are built and then left to take care of themselves. You place people in them that sometimes do not care and have no reason to take care of the place. It does not take many, just a small percentage to destroy the very ideal around its existence.

Whose job is it to create new jobs? Is it the job of the government? Absolutely not!!! It is the private sector that creates most of the jobs in America. That is right... rich, white people, many of them male. Poor people do not create jobs, at least not as many as rich people. It takes money to create jobs, because at some point, the workers are going to expect a paycheck whether or not the company shows a profit or not. It is the "rich, white males" that you have a problem with that have invested in the stocks of the company that are the last to be paid. If the company loses money, the "rich white males" do not get a return on their investment.

One could bring up studies where when education among a certain group is above a standard AA (associates degree- general studies) crime is less likely to occur.  One could also argue that these people are merely smart enough not to get caught.  What happens when we have people with BA's?  Will they be super smart criminals, or super smart leeches?  No, because due to their smarts they are now able to get that job, so that they too can contribute to the community/economy. This would support the socialist and capitalist model.

There are all sorts of educated people in prison today. But you are right; criminals are less likely to be people with a higher education. The reason is because you tend to live and work among people with similar education and this leads to employment with similar incomes and lifestyles. If you hangout with smart people, you will have smart people as friends. If you hangout with rich people, you will have rich people as friends. If you hangout with poor people, you will have poor people as friends. If you hangout with criminals, you will have criminals as friends. It has nothing to do with their contribution to the economy. If you break the law, you are likely to get caught and be punished for that crime. But in your defense, you could use the O.J. Simpson and his murder trial in the 1990s as an argument that the rich do not go to jail for their crimes.

Yet in the socialist model, the person who had worked so hard for that degree, to get that job, must now pay an inordinatly high tax (as is seen in France, and Switzerland); in the capitalist model that person gets to keep their just rewards and all their debt that they accumilated through student loans and tuitions.  Granted the person in the capitalist model will be able to use the money that they make to pay this off, and it should be considerably more due to less taxes being taken out, but now they have to put money away for their childs education (if they wish to have a family) because due to the rate of inflation among tuitions, in 15-20 years it will be nearly tripled.

So what do you prefer? Sorry to hear about inflation, but that is reality. You are right, state universities costs are outrageous and they are only going to get worse. In fact, they are going up much faster than inflation. This is a problem that should be addressed by your state representative. Do you know who your state representatives are?

So, for the person in the socialist model though had their education paid for up until a BA.  They were allowed to go to a prestigious college, and obtained some of the finest marks among their peers due to the classroom size and the hands on training.  When they leave college with their degree they can go anywhere in the world to do that job, because of the in depth trainning they recieved.  There is minimal amount to pay back, thus there is little debt.  They can start, in essence, flourishing with a job that starts out at 5-6 figures and only goes up from there.  Now, for the leech in the model of the socialist, it would be stupid not to take advantage of free education.  If you were on the street begging for money, people would laugh at you and tell you that you were looking a gift horse in the mouth.  Need housing?  The government provides. Need food?  The government provides.  Need surgery after you fell down those stairs?  The government provides.  This is possible only due to the socialistic make up of the government.

Let us go back a bit. Who is going to pay someone with a college degree 6 figures a year? If you can find a job like that, it will be from someone who is rich. These jobs are few and far between. But they do exist and they require results from the new employee... big results.

It would be stupid not to take advantage of free education, and yet it is happening every day. This comes under the heading of "poor decisions" that we mentioned earlier. Why is it the responsibility of the government with taxpayer's money, to provide housing, food, and medical care for someone that decided to dropout and become a leech on the very people that are the producers in this country? Should they be allowed at taxpayer's expense to live the lifestyle like the person that worked through college and landed one of those great "6 figure" jobs with a cell phone, expense account, and car? This is where socialism fails.

How To Catch Wild Pigs - A Lesson In Socialism is an editorial that might help explain the dangers of entitlements and dependency.

Meanwhile in the capitalist government we have; money is dumped into military spending, the military is the largest employeer in the U.S.,

Money is dumped into military spending because the Constitution requires it. The Federal Government is responsible for the defense of this country.

our educational spending is mere pennies in the bucket compared to the military's,

Here is the thing about the military. The defense of this country is one responsibility that is required of the federal government.

"The price of freedom is great... It is never given freely and it is forever being paid."

When is the government responsible for providing a college education for everyone? Universities receive a lot of money for education from every student. It is somewhere around $25,000-$75,000 a year and that is just for tuition. That does not include money that the government provides.

our crime is the highest in industrialized nations, our jails and incarceration is among the highest in the world,

That is because criminals that want something for nothing and do not care about anyone else made some very poor decisions and broke the law. Some of this comes from an "entitlement" mentality, a lifestyle that the dependency of entitlements has prepared to live. They chose not to take advantage of the free education that was offered to them because it required work and effort. Your statement seems to point to believing that the real crime is having these people in prison. They are there because of their actions. Do you want to release them all from prison on an unsuspecting public?

educational opporunity has been cut and most budget cuts come out of the educational department, teachers are among the lowest paid for the job that they do, and our college's are very selective on who they let in, how they let them in, and how much they should pay.

You probably want to discuss the quality of teachers with the teacher's union. You also might want to discuss the admission policies with your state representative. We think that any student should be given a chance to go to a state school as they are paid for by tax dollars. If they cannot handle the college education load and fail, well they had their chance and can go do something else.

The land of opportunity, maybe; we do have financial aide (only if you qualify), we have numerous opportunities to earn scholarships (mostly for the male, white, and educated),

Scholarships are often given for educated people that have a high probability of producing results in college such as maintaining a "B" average. So what... Take a look at the editorial "11 Things You Did Not Learn In School". You might find it somewhat eye opening, of course it was written by a rich, white male so you might dismiss it outright.

we have numerous jobs that people could fill (ones that would not support a family of three for more than 2 months).

It would be our guess that you are talking about an entry level job. Of course, this brings up one of those poor decisions that we spoke of earlier. If you do not earn enough and cannot afford to have 12 children, you should not have 12 children. The same reasoning applies to having any number of children, be it 1, 2, or 12 or more. You might want to make the assertion that poor people should be able to have as many children as they want. Sure, why not, but we, the public, should not have to bear the financial responsibility of providing for them.

So the problem we face is the catch 22, the poor can not receive a good education, so they turn to crime, they create more jails, they get out of jail, and want to get a job, can't get a job now so they go back to what they know.

Saying it is a "Catch 22" is to remove personal responsibility. You are saying that it is a vicious circle, a black hole that has no escape. It is not a hopeless situation. Many poverty stricken people have gotten themselves out of poverty and they have done it on their own. The government policies such as welfare never do that for the poor. These policies only make them more dependent on the government, which is what they are designed to do. Keep in mind that America has the richest poor people in the world. Most own cars, cell phones, television sets, and they have food to eat. In fact, they have so much food to eat that some are overweight to an unhealthy degree. You do not see this kind of poverty in other countries around the world.

Why are the poor not given the opportunity for education, for better education, for better opportunities, and why cut spending in the education field when it is the exact area that provides people with better jobs?  I thought we wanted to boost our economy?

Where did you get this from? The poor are given a free education. It is the poor quality of teachers and the unions that hinder the quality of the education that the students receive. Why are these teachers not teaching the students what is required to read and understand the very diploma that they receive upon graduation?

In reaction to another statement of yours where you have said that the U.S. has given so much.  With this i also agree, we have given alot.  Our foreign aide policy has stretched around the entire globe.  We have dumped money into India, Middle East, South America, and supposedly helped them out with their economy and government.  In most cases this is true; we have trained a certain group of people from that country in military tactics who then go and train the rest of their group, we then provide them with guns and weaponry, they overthrow the current government, we give them more money, so we can then come in and extract natural resources.  Our big multi-national corporations come in to set up factories and provide jobs while creating products for cheap.  The waste from these factories will permanetly damage the land, so what we rip out of it will not be replaced.  The people revolt, or have their own little up-rising, and then we realize that they now need our military help, so we then place a base there along with U.S. embassy, open tourism, control the rest of the population, and in essence have taken control of the country.

What country have we taken control of in this manner? You seem to think that all corporations are "evil" entities. These countries have their own governments that report to their population if they are a democracy and they have their own standards for the operation of the local factories that these foreign corporations set up. They provide jobs for the local population, which increase the standard of living for the local economy and that helps combat worldwide poverty. Maybe you should have all corporations leave foreign countries and remove tourism and the money that all of this brings into the local economy. What would this do for the underdeveloped countries? You want to see the poor getting poorer. You will along with the extreme poverty that comes with it. Then you will have an uprising with those that have not starved to death.

Yes we have given to these countries, but at what cost?  No cost for us because the profit margin is much larger than the spending.  Rather it is a cost for their environment (goodbye agriculture), cost on the innocent (collateral damage), and cost on our friendship- because when you teach a dog to kill, eventually that dog will bite back.  Our problem with terroism is something that we created by going in and training the people that caused the attrocities.  We have in essence created our enemy.  Good thing for us though, because since we have trained them and given them the weapons, then we know what they'll do and how their weapons operate.  Along with the fact that we keep the factories and interests going due to a constant state of fighting.

It sounds like you should be more upset with the host country that has very low environmental standards. That is not the fault of the "multi-national" corporations. That is the fault of the government of the host country.

Iraq was a horrible place, especially with Hussien in control. But without the control now, it has turned into borderline anarchy.  No one has rebuilt the government, no establishment of democracy, and the people that we are fighting right now are actually coming out of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and now up north from the Kurds.

You forgot about the free elections where women got to vote for the first time in 10,000 years, which translates to the first time EVER! Remember the purple fingers, proof that they voted. Vendors are doing business on the street again. Death rates are down from terrorists.

Free elections have been held several times and with enormous voter turnout. This is the action of rebuilding the government. How long should it take a new democracy to take root with a country that has never experienced freedom? 6 months... 1 year... 10 years... a generation... what do you consider an appropriate length of time?

We should have done some cleaning house in Saudi due to all of the Sept. 11 planes hijackers coming out of there.

And you forgot about Osama Bin Laden's nationality. Radical Islam is the reason for most of today's terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is considered an ally, we cannot attack them without just reason.  But i think that the government knows along with military advisors, is that if we go into Saudi with guns blazing- we will have a fight on our hands that we wouldn't know what to do with.

Why would we want to attack Saudi Arabia? In spite of what the "peace activists" say, we are not looking to occupy and conquer other nations to steal their oil. That is not why we are over there.

In contrary to those that were saying the war in Iraq was due to oil...not to sure on that one, i do agree that we have not pumped oil out of there but it is probably due to being too dangerous to do so.  I think Iraq was Bush's answer to our wanting to start a war on terror; Iraq is a good central point, perfect for a base of opperations, ability to enter multiple countries at once, but also bad in that respect because then they can attack from all sides.

Why are you not sure why we went back into Iraq? Allow us to remind you of the events. For 14 months in Congress, debate went on about Iraq's violations of 17 UN resolutions that were contained in the ceasefire from 1991. Gulf War II is merely a continuation of Gulf War I.

Iran right now has control of the Persian Gulf, where the 40% of the worlds oil comes out of.  Our pre-emptive strike on them would be in relations to that, along with waring on terrorism.  Iran can close of the strait and basically have the rest of the world on its knees due to the loss of that 40%, but i doubt OPEC would allow that.  Then again, if we invade (if we get to that point, which is more than likely) they will probably go against certain mandates and block off the gulf anyways.

Now you are considering the "free flow of oil" and how important it is on the world economy. This is one of the reasons for the coalition in the 1991 Gulf War. Remember the invasion of Kuwait and the capture of the Kuwaiti oil fields?

Finally i would just like to say that your web-site also stated that you were there to expose supposedly peaceful groups/protestors (i.e. ELF and ALF).  Well, your not really exposing them, because they are pretty straightforward in their mission statement.  They have been around for a bit, and if anyone wants to look them up they can and see that they do prommote a violent protest (which is contradictory to them wanting to help the environment).  In essence, by saying that your exposing them when you really aren't, you are supporting them by talking of their accomplishments, and quoting their mission statement for others to see and follow.

If you have heard about these groups and know what they do, then we are probably not exposing them to you because you already have the knowledge. However, for someone that thinks that PeTA is benevolent organization, then the truth about their agenda might be somewhat enlightening to those that do not know the truth.

Your more than welcome to write back, and counter me on any of these points.  I do not know everything and won't claim that i will, so please educate me if you believe i need it.  I also understand if you decide to quote me out of context, or mud sling that is fine also, it is a free country.  Thank you for whoever had the patience to read this, i hope you have a wonderful day.


Gabriel Jones

There is no reason for us or anyone else to sling mud, insults, or personal attacks nor are we going to quote you out of context. We have the facts to back us up and we do not need to resort to cheap tactics.


E-mails from Marcus
1 of 2

24 October 2007

Marcus wrote:

I am extremely offended that you would actually say that the ALF "kills children."

Well then, you are "extremely offended" for absolutely no reason because we never said that. You have misquoted us. You have read something into what we have written that is not there.

"Some say it is morally unacceptable but it is equally unacceptable to use animals in experiments. The children of those scientists are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should then be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest."
-- Robin Webb, Press Officer Animal Liberation Front

Robin Webb from the ALF has threatened children. This is an important distinction that you need to understand.

Whoever wrote that obviously has no idea what the ALF is actually about.

We did not write or say that. The Press Officer for the ALF did. We understand exactly what the ALF is all about. They use Brown Shirt tactics against law-abiding citizens to get what they want. They use threats of violence as a means of communication. They use arson and vandalism to achieve a means to an end. They use violent threats against family members to intimidate people into conforming to their wishes. How do you consider these actions not to be criminal? How do you see these actions as something other than Terrorism?

The ALF is for a good cause, to free suffering animals.  The cause is not to kill those that are innocent, that's what they're against.

But, they are considered to be justifiable targets. They may have good intentions, but they do not have the right to do what they do. If they believe that someone such as a researcher is doing something illegal, then they can report the violation of the law to the proper authorities.

If someone associated with the ALF ever carries any form of self defense, it truly is for their self defense.

What do you consider self-defense? It sounds like you are saying that if a homeowner ever tries to protect his own property, your friends with the ALF can attack, beat, and maybe even kill the homeowner in order to defend themselves. Well, at some point, that is exactly what is going to happen. It will not even matter if it is the wrong home. You just want to justify the killing of someone you have targeted.

What you say is completely ignorant and humiliating to the human race.  When I hear that the ALF is a "terrorist organization," I can not help but laugh.

Perhaps you did not actually read the 120+ examples of their contribution to society or maybe you just do not understand what terrorism is. We noticed that you did not dispute the facts of what we had written, just the label of "terrorist". You can deny it all you want to, it does not change the truth.

What is humiliating to the human race are the threats against the children of people that you hate. Did you laugh at the part where a Molotov Cocktail was left at the wrong home? Maybe you consider that to be a form of "Free Speech".

Deny it all you want, but the fact remains that these people are Terrorists and they prove it with every terrorist act they commit in the name of "animal suffering".


E-mails from Marcus
2 of 2

25 October 2007

Marcus wrote:

"So here we have Robin Webb, Press Officer of the Animal Liberation Front, advising activists of so-called "Non-Violent" movements to arm themselves and kill people, including children. There is no way to argue that these people and organizations are not Terrorists."

You say here that Robin Webb advises activists to kill children.

Let us take another look at what he actually said.

"Some say it is morally unacceptable but it is equally unacceptable to use animals in experiments. The children of those scientists are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should then be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest."
-- Robin Webb

"When you look at the other struggles, there comes a point where non-violent action no longer works. If activists become fed up with non-violent protest, then they will take another road and adopt an armed struggle. When you have right on your side, it's easy to keep going. It really is."
-- Robin Webb

Robin Webb said it. We just gave you the quotes as they appear on this website. What do you think he means when he states "non-violent action no longer works. If activists become fed up with non-violent protest, then they will take another road and adopt an armed struggle."

He already stated that families "are a justifiable target for protest." We see how they protest and now he is saying that if "activists become fed up with non-violent protest, then they will take another road and adopt an armed struggle." Do you think he is saying to shoot their children in the leg and spare their lives? His intent seems pretty clear to us. Take a good look at how the ALF chooses to protest. They commit vandalism and arson. The use of Molotov Cocktails is a standard practice. And as you say, if someone catches them in the act what form of self-defense are they going to use to make sure that they do not go to prison? Are they going to eliminate the witness on the spot? These people are arsonists. They firebomb as a form of protest. It is not like they have an overflowing supple of morals and ethics. Well... except for the ones they try use to legitimize their criminal activity.

He is not threatening the consumer, but the producer.

No, he is threatening the families of the producer, a person that is operating within the law. If you think that the law should be changed, then there are legal means to change the law?

You want to call an organization thats only mean is to SAVE ANIMALS a "terrorist organization", That is why I laugh.

You are wrong again. They seek to destroy businesses. They target and intimidate people. They plant explosive devices where they please. We have cited their past actions and deeds so there can be no doubt.

To counter another one of you're ignorant arguments; the ALF is not doing this just because they don't want to see animals hurt (a reason that benefits only humans) but because the animals don't want to be harmed in this way.  And there is no way you can counter that.

We did not give you an argument, we gave you facts. And you did not dispute a single one. However, you did misquote us, but you did not dispute a single fact. You did not dispute the numerous break-ins, arsons, and other acts of destruction of private property, not a single one.

Here is a fact that you can spend time denying.

"In the natural world, every living thing, be it plant or animal, exploits every other living thing that exists on the planet in order to survive just one more day regardless of the degree of separation. Like it or not, that is nature."

If the lion is fast enough, he will kill a water buffalo and will have a meal at the end of the day. If the water buffalo lives, the lion will go hungry. One of them will die a painful death. Humans are part of nature and have to live by the same rules. By having a superior brain, we do not have to hunt every day as we have been able to utilize the natural resources of the planet so that only a small part of the population is needed to farm and raise food that feed over six billion of people every day. To take this ability away and prevent the few from providing food for the many and you will have starvation on an unprecedented scale. You can plan your menu, but leave everyone else the freedom to plan their daily dietary consumption based on whatever they see as a priority.

If you really try to tell me that animals don't have feelings or some type of bullshit like that, then why don't you just go around killing everyones dog for the sake of an afternoon meal.

It is ashamed this needs to be explained to you but we will be happy to take time out of our day to explain why that scenario is wrong. Get ready... THE DOG BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE. However, by the rationalism of the ALF, it would be alright to liberate the dog from its owner and set if free in the country and who really cares what happens to it.

And you say that the ALF should just report the illegal actions of researchers and such?  Well numerous organizations have been fined for illegal things, but most do not get shut down.  For instance, KFC workers have been found to be acting against the regulations several times, they have been fined, but have they ever been shut down? No.  I will continue denying, because you will continue using these ridiculous arguments just because they are taking matters into their own hands because this government won't.

We are sure that you are going to continue denying that the ALF is a terrorist organization. We will not. We have the facts showing the damage that has been done in the name of the ALF. Perhaps you are proud of their accomplishments. But what have they really done? McDonald's restaurants are still in business. KFC's are still in business. If you cause one mink farm to close, another will fill the void you cause. If you do not want to stay within the law, perhaps you should target the consumer. Without the consumer, the producer will not be able to stay in business. As long as there is a demand for KFC, new medicines, and animal products, there will be someone that will fill that need. What you need to do is to get rid of the demand and the production of the product will cease to exist.


E-mails from Alex Grant
1 of 2

26 August 2007

alex grant wrote:

Your website appears to be a very well thought out project with flawed viewpoints. I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong, just flawed. The fact of the matter is, you use the term "terrorist" loosely. A terrorist, in my opinion, and I could care less what the "correct" definition is, anyone who fights for what they believe, no matter what. Were not the Christians terrorists during the Crusades? Is not America a terrorist, after invading a country and intending on imposing it's beliefs, forcibly, onto Iraqis? When it all boils down, there is a little "terrorist" in everyone. It's just that the word "terrorist" has received an increasing bad connotation following 9/11. I believe that there are "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists".

Are you kidding with this? You think that America is a terrorist nation because we liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi Army. What do you consider Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was? So you think that Democracy and Freedom is something that we have to force on the Iraqi people. They are the ones that flocked to the polls to vote on their government despite the fact that terrorists threatened to bomb and made attempts to do so at the voting places. They voted because they had the freedom to do so. They voted because they want Democracy.

We are somewhat curious as to whether you consider the terrorists and suicide bombers that tried to stop the free elections as "good terrorists" or "bad terrorists". How do you classify a suicide bomber that targets civilians in a market place? Do you consider them as "good terrorists" or "bad terrorists"?

And what is this viewpoint that you believe that the word "terrorist" got a bad rap after 9/11. How flawed is this viewpoint? Did you believe that the concept of a "terrorist" was a good thing? Terrorists do not bring peace to the world. They only bring hate, violence, fear, and death. How do you believe the term "terrorist" only now "has received an increasing bad connotation"?

Animal liberators are what I would consider a good terrorist. Hell, I'm glad to be called anything so long as I can fight for what I believe in. Terrorist is just a name, it's only purpose is to provide us with an easier way to talk about those people. If you could only open your mind to the big picture and see what these groups are doing, maybe your opinions could change. Just try to get past the word terrorist and see the whole picture.

So you are one of the "animal liberators" that we have written about. It is not so much the name, but rather the actions and deeds that concern us the most. We have written about the actions and crimes of these groups extensively.

You say you want us to get past the word "terrorist". What you mean is you want us to ignore the truth. You want Terrorism to be accepted as a legitimate form of protest. Sorry, that is not going to happen.

You also claim that these groups hide certain facts about killing animals in vans and what not.

We did not make the claim, they did. It came out in investigations when PeTA workers, Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle, explained how they killed the dogs that they promised they would try to find homes for and the dumpster where they dumped the carcasses in garbage bags.

Well, how many big corporations come out and admit to all of the torture. Is that not a double standard you hold?

If you think that something illegal is happening, you can call the police. If you think the law should be changed, then there is a legal solution to available to you. You have the power to change the law. You just do not want to take the time and effort to do so.

Concerning that double standard accusation, where have we ever advocated the torture or mistreatment of animals? We have never supported the mistreatment of any animal.

Or maybe you are all employers at a business that kills thousands of you animals a year. Let me ask you this; if you were in control of your death would you choose a quick painless death, or would you choose something awful, such as suffocation, hanging, drowning, burning, electrocution or worse, which lab animals face every day. My guess is that you chose the painless way, which I would choose as well.

Unless you choose suicide, then you are probably not in control of your death so the question is not really applicable. However, you could always consider yourself a "good terrorist" and become a suicide bomber. That being said, we will ask you again, where we have ever supported anything like the examples you just gave?

You said on your website that we should go talk to our legislatures. True, it might work and get the laws changed and all business would work cruelty free. However it would not change what the researchers did. And letting them off the hook would be the same as letting a murderer off the hook after he agreed to not kill anymore.

So what you really want is to punish someone for an act that is not illegal. Do you not want to effect change to make all business cruelty free? Is that not your goal? It does not seem to be the case. What you do not seem to understand is that murder is not legal so your premise of "letting a murderer off the hook after he agreed to not kill anymore" is irrelevant. You cannot let someone off the hook if they were never on the hook. And you talk about America forcing beliefs on the Iraqi people is somehow wrong. You want to punish someone for breaking a law that does not exist.

However, your website is just proof that people like yourselves have nothing to do but argue and complain about people who are trying to fix the planet. You talk all this shit from behind your website wall, but you can't come out in public and say anything. Your scared of change and your probably never going to amount to anything. I bet you voted for Bush too...

It is interesting that you mention argue and complaining about people who are trying to fix the planet. Take a good look at "Alternative and Green Energy - Who Has A Problem With It?" and "Are You A Liberal". While you want us to be the cause of all that is bad, you will find that the only people that are standing in the way of anyone trying to fix the planet are Liberals.


E-mails from Alex Grant
2 of 2

28 August 2007

alex grant wrote:

I'm sending back some of your corrections and questions, with some corrections and questions of my own. Enjoy!

It is always a pleasure.

"Are you kidding with this?"

I guess grammar isn't really important to you.

What grammatical errors did you see [on our part]?

"You think that America is a terrorist because we liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi Army. What do you consider Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was?"

I don't recall ever saying anything about Saddam Hussein and his invasion of Kuwait, but thanks for asking. Also, I was referring to the most recent war, Operation Iraqi Freedom or whatever it's been called. If I remember correctly, America went to war with Afghanistan after 9/11, in order to capture the one who was responsible for the attacks.

Actually, you did refer to it, although you just may not have realized it.

This is where you show your lack of knowledge on history. For 14 months, debate went on about Iraq's violations of 17 UN resolutions that were contained in the ceasefire from 1991. Gulf War II is merely a continuation of Gulf War I. But please do not let us confuse your argument with a bunch of relevant and historically accurate facts. Feel free to ignore them.

Well, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 so why were we in Iraq. That's right, I forgot, Iraq has oil. And don't try to tell me that America wasn't only after oil, cause you would just be lying to yourself.

If you want to believe that the primary reason was oil, by all means, do so if that is what gets you through the night. Perhaps you need to see a few quotes.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States, 1998

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, and the security of the world."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently..."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States speaking about Saddam Hussein

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors..."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States, December 16, 1998

That is what President Bill Clinton had to say on the subject and Vice President Al Gore backed him up on every word.

"We are somewhat curious as to whether you consider the terrorists and suicide bombers that tried to stop the free elections as 'good terrorists' or 'bad terrorists'. How do you classify a suicide bomber that targets civilians in a market place? Do you consider them as 'good terrorists' or 'bad terrorists'?"

I guess I would classify someone who attacks civilians who have done nothing wrong a bad person. However, you can't compare those terrorists with whom you call terrorists, like the animal liberators. It's like comparing apples to oranges. You can't honestly say that someone who harasses and threatens a person who tortures animals for a living is the same as someone who blows up innocent people.

Here you are trying to legitimize the actions of people to "harass and threaten" people that are not breaking the law. We never said that the law should not be changed; we are saying that it is legal. However, harassment and threats against life and property is not legal. And YES, we do consider it a form of terrorism. If the attack on the World Trade Center had not killed or harmed anyone, what would you have considered that act to be? Would that have been terrorism?

Maybe the animal testers are not doing anything legally wrong, but it is extremely disturbing and ethically wrong. If you feel that it should continue only because it is legal, then you do not deserve to own a pet ever!

Here is where you show your true colors. The animal liberators are doing something legally wrong. And that is what we are saying.

It is not your decision for you to decide whether or not we should own a pet. If you listen to PeTA, they do not believe in pet ownership. If you do, they might decide to target you. Will that be OK with you?

"We did not make the claim, they did. It came out in investigations when PeTA workers, Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle, explained how they killed the dogs that they promised they would try to find homes for and the dumpster where they dumped the carcasses in garbage bags."

First of all, I don't agree with PETA and I will never have anything to do with PETA. If your website is correct about their actions then it is deeply disturbing. However, I was referring to your website as a whole not the PETA incident. Open your minds, you ignorant Republicans.

This website is absolutely correct about that. It is deeply disturbing. That was out point. And PeTA supports the ALF. We find that deeply disturbing. As you can see, you are the one that is showing their ignorance.

"If you think that something illegal is taking place, you can call the police. If you think the law should be changed, then there is a legal solution to available to you. You have the power to change the law. You just do not want to take the time and effort to do so."

IS THIS A JOKE!? Oh my god. I wrote about changing the laws in my first email, so I am well aware of the indirect and slow methods of solving this problem. You're right, I am too impatient to wait for our Government to do something. I would much rather stop the problem now, no matter what it takes.

The only thing you stated about changing the laws was that you were too impatient and therefore refuse to use the process to effect change. You did not actually write about it, we did and you acknowledged that fact.

What you did mention was that you are one of the people that have no problem killing the families of researchers that you do not like in order to get what you want. You said "no matter what it takes."

"Concerning that double standard accusation, where have we ever advocated the torture or mistreatment of animals? We have never supported the mistreatment of any animal."

Where have you ever advocated against the torture of animals? Where have you ever spoken against animal research? "If your not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." You people are just as bad as the people who test on animals.

You are obviously against testing new drugs on animals. How would you have new drugs tested? You are obviously against dissecting animals in schools. No problem. How do you train new veterinarians? You probably do not like passing the meat counter at the grocery store. Sorry, we will be eating a turkey for Thanksgiving.

"Unless you choose suicide, then you are probably not in control of your death so the question is not really applicable. However, you could always consider yourself a "good terrorist" and become a suicide bomber. That being said, we will ask you again, where we have ever supported anything like the examples you just gave?"

I guess you people are too obtuse to understand a hypothetical question when it is presented. I also never once said that suicide bombers were good people, so I haven't the faintest idea of what you might be referring to. I believe it was you who said that about the suicide bombers. In fact I didn't even mention suicide bombers in my first email.

You mentioned "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists". We asked if you considered a suicide bomber to be a "good terrorist" or a "bad terrorist" as these were the two choices you gave us. We noticed you evaded the question. With your use of the word "Double Standard", it almost sounds like you are living with a "Double Standard", which is very much a Liberal characteristic. Where have you ever spoken against the use of suicide bombers? Where have you ever advocated against the use of threats and destruction such as the tactics used by the ALF, ELF, and other violent and extreme animal rights groups?

"While you want us to be the cause of all that is bad, you will find that the only people that are standing the way of anyone trying to fix the planet are Liberals."

I never once said that you were the cause of all that is bad, but my, isn't that a guilty conscious you have. Well, since Al Gore is a Liberal and he is trying to help the Global Warming problem, and George W Bush is not a Liberal and he is also hurting the planet with all that he has done, I'm afraid I don't understand your accusations that Liberals are hold us back.

Do You Love Planet Earth? Then Why Are You Still A Republican?

And now you have said it. We do not have a guilty conscience or as you say it "a guilty conscious", but we do have the facts that you choose to ignore. For instance, we notice you either ignored or refused to accept the fact that Senator Kennedy (Dem-MA) and Representative Delahunt (Dem-MA) are doing whatever they can to stop the wind power project on Horseshoe Shoal. You ignored the facts in the editorial "Alternative and Green Energy - Who Has A Problem With It?". As far as Al Gore goes, he uses more energy in a month than most families use in two years. He does not walk-the-walk with regards to energy conversation or "Green Energy" so using him as an example does nothing for your argument. Tell us, what Republican or Conservative wants to destroy the planet or the environment? What Republican or Conservative is standing in the way of "Green Energy"?

Does your house have active photovoltaic solar cells and a wind generator on it? Personally, my house that I am building does. I am totally off the grid. Zero emissions. Can Al Gore say that?

What is that big oil company that Al Gore has so much of his family money invested? That is right, it is Occidental Petroleum (OXY), the Los Angeles based company which holds oil drilling rights to the Achuar's rainforest homelands in Peru. Currently, they are asking Occidental Petroleum to clean up the billions of barrels of toxic waste it dumped on their rainforest homelands over 30 years and to leave the new drilling concessions.


03 August 2007

gavin wrote:

your definition of terrorism -
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons...

That is correct, but somehow you seem have some problem with this definition.

wait a minute...
a pianist uses a piano
an extremist uses extremes
a guitarist uses a guitar
a nudist walks around naked...
the suffix "ist" means "one who does" and the suffix "ism" denotes an idea people follow.

That is right. A Terrorist is one who commits the act of terrorism. Terrorism is the idea or doctrine that instills the fear of force or violence into people with the intent of intimidation or coercion for ideological or political reasons. Just like our definition clearly states.

Terrorism is simply "the use of fear". it could be for any purpose, by far the most common of course being for propaganda purposes. for example, telling your child that if they play with matches they can be killed, and that it hurts to die in a fire, is the use of fear to protect your child.

You have it wrong. It is not "fear" but rather the threat of violence that instills fear into others. You probably are going to assert that "force" is used in the discipline of children as you have already alluded to that concept. The problem is that you cannot differentiate in the force used to punish a child for disobedience and walking into a crowded market wearing a vest full of explosives with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible.

If the US was invaded tomorrow undoubtedly you or somebody you know would be out on the streets with a rifle protecting your property and the lives of your family and friends. At the same time, there would be neo-fascist groups, also heavily armed, attempting to enforce their own ideology, and they would be just as prepared to attack the invading foreign force, who's leaders would no doubt tar you all with the same brush and call you a terrorist.

You are absolutely correct. We are assuming that you are referring to the "Invasion of Iraq". This is where you are not quite accurate in your recollection of history. Coalition forces attacked Iraq because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It was called the Gulf War, January 1991. As we approached Baghdad, Coalition forces lead by America agreed to a ceasefire from Saddam Hussein. We did not want to invade Iraq. It would have been much less trouble to allow Hussein to remain in power despite of the abysmal human rights record that the Iraqi government had maintained.

This Ceasefire came with certain conditions established by the UN. In the years that followed, 17 of these UN resolutions contained in the Ceasefire were violated many times. The United States spent 14 months debating returning to Iraq and engaging Hussein again. Keep in mind that the United States did not try to conquer Iraq and expand its land holdings unlike what Iraq did with Kuwait. They did invade Kuwait with the intent of taking the oil fields of Kuwait and making them property of Iraq. You know, expanding their land holdings. Invading for oil. Killing for oil. The Left-Wing has never criticized Iraq and Saddam Hussein for that.

When US troops and Iraqi insurgents exchange rifle fire etc. that is a legitimate method of warfare, while attacking civilians is not. Now, you are exercising your right to free speech, which I will in no way attempt to impair, but stand warned that you are only able to see the world from your own viewpoint, and your language is loaded. I suppose mine must also be, since as humans we are only capable of seeing the world through our own eyes.

Then why do you oppose fighting the terrorists that attack civilians with their car bombs and suicide bombers? That is what we are against.

Why is it that you are quick to warn us that we are only able to see the world from our viewpoint, but you are not completely sure that the same does not apply to you? The language is only loaded with facts, none of which you have disputed.

By the very nature of politics, extremists work away in the background of any government, and push the extreme use of force, promote draconian laws and otherwise make life difficult for the human race. Be very careful that you don't support those people in your country who are extremists, who would happily Level Baghdad or Tikrit without regard to the fate of the civilians who are too poor to simply up stakes and move out. Next time a "terrorist" blows the shit out of a market place full of women and children, ask yourself if blowing similar shades of shit out of Fallujah was Justified. In both scenarios, civilians were killed. Both groups of people who constructed the bombs and set them off consider themselves to be the good guys. Manslaughter and murder both feel the same to the victims and their families, any of whom could then pick up a rifle and henceforth become your worst enemy.

Why are the terrorists that you seem to oppose us speaking against attacking civilians? They do so because their desire is to inflict fear through the use of force and violence. Perhaps another look at our definition is in order.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons.

Why do you seem to have a problem with this definition?

The us like any other country has the right to defend itself from attack, however I do not believe the invasion of Iraq will aid you in that goal. Try using a hammer to change a light bulb; Its expensive and largely impossible. Sun Tsu, a famous general, once said,
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you will not fear the result of a hundred battles" But you don't know your enemy. Your leaders were unaware of the fragmentary, tribal nature of the Iraqi population, and Iraq has as a result of your invasion has deteriorated into a civil war. In short, they didn't know their enemy.  They couldn't tell the difference between the pro Sadam Sunni militias who fight to re-instate their old way of life, and the Islamist militias who fight to instill their own expansionist ideology in Iraq. They didnt seem to realise that Saddam was one of Osama bin ladens key political adversaries, because he acted against the Islamist idea by building a secular, pan Arabist state. They didn't know that they would all fight each other at the first opportunity, and they didnt realise that all of these groups are united by their hatred of the US/ They generally believed that the whole population of Iraq would accept democracy as their new system of government. If they had it would have been great, job done, but they don't and they wont. If you were likely to achieve any of your long term objectives I would applaud your wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't believe you will, at least not cheaply or without the loss of thousands more Soldiers and civilians.

Everyone knows that the Arabs and/or Muslims will fight each other at the drop of a hat. They have done so for thousands of years. When was this not a known and undisputed truth? The only thing that keeps Arabs from killing each other is a common and intense HATRED of Israel. When have they ever wanted to live in a world of peace? Israel is not trying to conquer Arab lands, but Arabs/Muslims want to conquer Israel and kill every Israeli. And the western countries too as we have documented on this website.

Democracy is akin to freedom. This is one of the reasons that so many people from around the world are trying to escape their own countries and move to American and other western Democracies. Well... except for those that wish to destroy western countries. We have documented this phenomenon extensively.

Democracy requires a certain personal responsibility and involvement. The opportunity is there. If they reject it, then they will have to deal with the consequences of their choice. Not allowing terrorism to win is a good start to a civilized life and a life of peace.

These people were all present during Saddam's reign of terror, and have now been let out of the box that Saddam, despite his brutality, did us all a big favour to keep them in. In ten years time when people are being stoned to death for wearing the wrong clothes, and women are tortured for the slightest transgressions, the population will say "Thank you America for putting these extremists in power. Were much better off now that you've fucked us all in the ass."

Saddam and his family would still be in power if he had abided with the terms of the ceasefire agreement, but he chose not to do so. In ten years time, if Iraqis choose not to fight the extremists that are responsible for terrorist attacks, then they will have the life they brought on themselves. We have helped them install a Democratic government whereby the population has a say in government. We cannot force it on them, but if they decide not to embrace it, then they are welcome to life without it and they will have no one to blame but themselves.

When Osama bin Laden was attacking the Soviets, the world looked on and generally he was labelled as a freedom fighter. The soviets considered him a terrorist. They believed that anybody who opposed their socialist ideology must have been either evil or insane. Now that he is attacking you, you consider him a terrorist. You believe that anybody who opposes democracy is either evil or insane.

Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter because he was fighting Communism. You may not understand this, but fighting against Communism is fighting for Freedom. Life under Communism is not considered to be a life of Freedom. If it was, there would not be a need for walls such as the Berlin Wall to keep people in a country and not free to leave, hence the lack of Freedom inherent with Communism and all other Marxist based governments.

Why do you not consider him to be a terrorist?

Expansionist ideologies are a common cause of war, and democracy is no exception, since almost every democratic system of government got its roots in civil war. Please don't allow American democracy to become expansionist once again. Democracy did its expanding, those countries which adopted it are now relatively stable, and since then it has stopped being an expansionist ideology. Lets keep it that way.

Let's take a look at your statement. "Democracy did its expanding, those countries which adopted it are now relatively stable..." Why do you not want the same for other countries? Here is a truth that you may not have fully realized. With the exception of the American Civil War, there has not been a major war between two Democracies. If you want to end war around the world, the implementation of Democracy is a good start. A Democratic government is much less likely to go to war with another Democratic government if they are trading with each other under the doctrine of Free Enterprise and Capitalism. Democracy encourages this. Marxism does not.


03 July 2007

Hallie wrote:

Having to save the pain of so many animals by euthanasing them every day, simply because there are no decent homes for them to go to, is not fun...and it is not terrorism....your scare bullshit is...

What is terrorism is the support of groups like the Animal Liberation Front and people like Rodney Coronado. We have no problem with the euthanizing of animals when necessary. All we have done is to explain PeTA is not the warm and fuzzy organization that it claims to be.

I have worked in animal welfare for more than 20 years, and i have learned that there are plenty things worse than cannot imagine the torture of keeping an animal captive for so long...dogs go totally stir crazy kept captive for lengthy periods....and hey...we sometimes have to say that the animal will be placed in a loving home...even if chances are slim...otherwise the person, who is not a suitable owner anyway,....and should have not had the kittens anyway...and should have had it registered anyway....and it wasn't mine anyway...

Right here in your own words, you admit to lying to people to get their pets for the purpose of euthanizing them without making any concerted effort to find them homes. It is clear that you have no intention of finding any homes for these animals. Why do you have to lie? If you tell them the truth, maybe the people will make an effort to find a home instead of giving the animal to you to kill. It has been proven that PeTA workers have killed dogs and cats right in front of the home where they picked up and where they promised to try to find homes for them.

you guys should open your are intelligent in some ways,...and you should see who is "pulling the wool", but i am sure your small mindedness would'nt think you rock...those of us fighting the fight think you suck C..k

What have we said that is wrong? You have failed to point out where we have incorrectly stated the facts. And you misspelled the word "euthanasing" (it should be "euthanizing"). You do not seem to know how to spell what you do or at least what you advocate. You may not like us and you can resort to name-calling as your side often does, but you cannot say we are lying. You have admitted that PeTA routinely lies to the public. If we open our eyes as you suggest, what else are we going to see? You have not disputed a single fact on this website.


29 June 2007

billy barrett wrote:

If saving animals from a life of constant and useless pain for experiments that prove nothing linked to humans then maybe you should find more out before you make a website based on lies.


You are everything we expect from our critics. If you believe that these experiments should not be performed, then lobby the legislature/lawmakers to amend or pass laws to prevent animal testing. But taking the law into your own hands is not the answer. We live in a land of laws. If you believe that you should be exempt from these laws, what prevents others from being exempt and making you the target of their taking the law into their own hands and deciding your fate.

Now, what are the lies that this website based on? We have reported how terrorists have threatened others. We reported how they targeted an elderly woman by attempting to fire bomb her house. They screwed up and tried to kill her and her tenant. Having two people burn to death in a house fire started with gasoline is what you are advocating. This is what we are reporting because it is the truth. What you consider lies are in reality truths that you would rather not want revealed to anyone. You want to hide the truth. We understand this. If that lady had burned to death, you would have considered it the fault of either the intended target or of the lady for living anywhere near the intended target or perhaps an error or miscalculation. You side with people that want to kill others because they have different opinions and views on life. The use of fear and intimidation to coerce is the very definition of terrorism. These are the lies you speak of. These are the "Lies" that this website is based on and yet, you have not disputed a single fact on this website. You just hate our existence. You hate our Right of Free Speech. You hate.

Show us where we have lied on this website. Go ahead... we dare you. The fact is that you cannot. There are no lies on this website. We report what terrorists groups do and we give commentary. It seems that you support the actions of the ALF, ELF, and other eco-terrorist groups. That is the reason you hate us. That is the reason you hate. You are everything we expect from these groups.


03 June 2007

Dragon Lady wrote:

You people are f*cking nuts!!!!!!!!!!

We get many e-mails like this. The first thing you do is to resort to name-calling, personal attacks, and insults. Yet you have not disputed a single fact on this website. It is too bad that you cannot offer an opinion that you seem to feel strongly about without using some form of profanity. You obviously have a limited vocabulary.

I bet your all members of the NRA, KKK and any other hate group.

So you consider the NRA to be a hate group. What "direct action" has the NRA ever done? What terrorist groups has the NRA ever supported? Madame, either you are not in control of your faculties or you just want a reason to hate people that have opinions different from you. As for the KKK and other hate groups, the radical environmentalists a.k.a. eco-terrorists are a thousand times more likely to engage acts that typical of the KKK than anyone that appreciates this website. In fact, how are the tactics of the ELF and the ALF different than the tactics of the KKK with their burning down black churches or planting bombs in Jewish temples and synagogues?

Gee, tree-lovers and animal lovers, what a mean bunch of people. Try taking on some Asian or Mexican gang members, now that would take real balls!

Well, let's see... they try to take control of other people's property, engage in acts of harassment, vandalize property, commit arson, and break in to people's homes. You are right. There is nothing mean spirited about any of that. (Note sarcastic tone) But maybe you did not take the time to actually read the list of accomplishments of groups such as the Earth Liberation Front. Many of them have recently received prison sentences after pleading guilty to crimes such as Arson. We noticed that you did not dispute anything that we wrote.

Who is more likely to take on gang members of any nationality? The tree huggers... the animal lovers... the ALF... the ELF...? Who on this website is more likely to stand up to gang members? You??? It is highly doubtful! Who is likely to support the Minutemen that are reporting Mexican gangs illegally entering America? That would be us and the like-minded readers of this website. That would be the military that we support. That would be the Conservatives and not the bleeding heart Liberals. In fact, it is you that are more likely to support the illegal aliens and the gangs that brought them into this country.


29 May 2007

Jane Armstrong wrote:

I am writing to you about the Resume (Animal Liberation Front terrorist Acts) published on your Website.
I would rather call that a list of success. Who else is willing to help these creatures?

So you believe that breaking the law is an acceptable method of action?

They don't have a voice so someone needs to speak for them.

But you are not speaking for them. You are supporting terrorists and their violent actions take away from the very cause that you claim you are trying to support. The violence gets the headlines, not the reason for the violence. You end up defeating your own cause.

No one has the right to hurt or use an animal, we are born with the same right to live. And the animals locked up and used for unnecessary animal testing (Procter and Gamble are the best example) deserve to live a normal life too.

Why is the testing unnecessary? It takes time and money to test. If it was not necessary then Procter and Gamble (your example) would not spend the money on unnecessary testing and keep it as profit. There must be a reason for the testing.

I totally support the A.L.F.  and I understand why lab scientists have to deal with the violence, just because that's what they do every day when they go to work and  its true when people say that's the only language they understand.

Do you also support the non-lethal actions (not the lethal actions) of the Ku Klux Klan because their actions and motives are the same?

What language does the ALF understand? Apparently they understand violence. Apparently you understand it also, because you have clearly stated that you support the ALF. Why is the ALF allowed to be exempt from the laws the govern everyone else? Do you consider it acceptable for someone else take the law into their hands in the dealings with the ALF and the ELF? Is this the way you would have others deal with you?

There is a Point where you cannot reason anymore. I am glad there are People out there to take of those animals.    AND YES I AM GLAD THERE IS THE A.L.F.!!!


If you want to change the law and make these actions you disagree with illegal, there are ways to do so. By doing so, you bring the entire justice system to bear on law breakers instead of a few terrorists that prey on others that have nothing to do with harming animals. We have examples on this website. We cite a famous example on the Earth Liberation Front page. We know that you said that you support the Animal Liberation Front, but because of the similar terrorist actions and the declared solidarity of these two groups, we suspect that you are sympathetic with this group also.

Can you talk to and reason with members of the ALF?


26 May 2007

BigBuffJ82@***.com wrote:

You cry so much about lefts, liberals, democrats, yada yada yada.  We're all secret Marxists with social agendas correct?

It is no secret that Liberalism gets much of its doctrine from Marxist philosophy. Most people do not realize this fact, which is why we are here to educate people of the dangers of Marxism that has been forgotten over the last 40 years.

Answer these questions without using witty sarcastic rebuttals as to insult but rather try to acknowledge their truth.

Why do we claim we live in a democracy where people decide based on votes? Last time I voted I chose someone else to speak for me.

At no point have we ever said that. We never made the claim that we live in a Democracy. We live by Democracy under a "Representative Republic". A Representative Republic is a political system that is led by elected leaders that do not hold their power status on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country. The leaders answer to the general population that has the power to vote the representatives in or out of elected positions. The advantage of this system is that it is stability inherent with the system to ride out many of the circumstances or events that can cause emotional reactions in the population due to these events. We have on this website two editorials worthy of reading. They are "The Meaning of Marxism" and "Forms of Government", both of which you might find educational.

Why don't we the American people vote on going to war?

The United States Constitution gave Congress, not the President, the Right to Declare War. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Why don't we the American people vote on raising the minimum wage? FYI it was just raised for the first time in 10 years recently.  And in 2 more years it will be at a meager $7.20.  Do the math.  Can you support yourself with food, electricity, transportation, communication, and personal items with $7.20 an hour?

People are not supposed to live on the Minimum Wage. The Minimum Wage is an entry level wage for an entry level job. Essentially, it is a wage for what used to be called an Apprenticeship. This is where Marxism begins to show its ugly head. This is not welfare. We are talking about a wage for work. When a person asks for a chance at an employed position, why should an employer be forced to pay an employee else more than they are worth or for anything other than what they agree upon?

What do you think an entry level wage should be for an unskilled employee with no academic degree or work experience performing an unskilled job?

If you are still working for the minimum wage after two years of experience, then perhaps you are not much of an employee. If you believe that you are not appreciated by your employer, then you can search for a position with another company or even go into business for yourself and then you can deal with workers that are not worth what you are forced to pay them.

I find it quite odd, however, that your congress has consecutively given itself a raise 9 times.  NINE times.  And last time I checked they were doing a fabulous job.  I can't ever remember such a prouder time to call myself an American when I step out of my country. We are just so well liked all over the world.

We certainly do not think that Congress deserved a raise and nowhere have we stated that we did. In fact, if it were up to us, we would cut their salary. We do not know who you are checking with, but we do not believe that they are doing that great of a job.

Have you ever been proud to call yourself an American? Americans feed the world, provide assistance to other countries whenever a disaster strikes, and we provide financial aid to countries all over the world.

We did notice how you said "your congress", which makes us question if you really are an American, although it really does not matter as we will respond to your e-mail in a respectful and courteous manner regardless of where you call home.

Democracy means the president has the last say on passing bills.  Hmmm, one person makes the decision.  Lets see, one person making the decision on how much money to spend, or whether to increase funds for war, or to pass or veto any bill altogether.  One person, democracy?

The President is only allowed to make the decision after both houses of Congress pass a bill and then send to him to sign into law. Spending money is the responsibility of Congress, not the President. As far at your comment about "One person democracy", perhaps you need to take a civics course.

If you ask me we the American people have lost ALL control of any decision making.  Lobbyists pull votes based on how much money they pump into the system.  (FYI that's considered bribery)

Have you heard of "Universal Healthcare"? This is nothing more than Socialized Medicine. This is perfect example of how the "American people have lost ALL control of any decision making". If you take a closer look, you will find that Liberal politicians take more money from lobbyists than do Conservative politicians.

Lobbyist - a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest.

You have plenty to say about the politicians' decisions on Election Day. That is what Election Day is all about. The Lobbyist represents a particular interest. It is very doubtful that there is not a Lobbyist in Washington DC that is representing your ideas about whatever it is that you consider important. A Lobbyist is nothing more than a messenger delivering a message from a group of people offering support toward re-election efforts. It becomes a bribe when the money is pocketed by the politician.

OK so ... we have no say on decisions, our voices get lost to the louder dollar bills, and we have one person who finalizes any implementation of law or funding. Doesn't sound like such a great country to me.  In fact it sounds much like the dictatorship we just sought to destroy.

You have plenty to say about the politicians' decisions on Election Day. That is what Election Day is all about. You can call your Congressman and tell him what you think about his performance as a Representative. You do seem to have a very pessimistic view of America and you do not seem to understand what a dictatorship really is. One of the great things about this country is if you do not want to live here, you are free to leave and live anywhere you like. Perhaps if a civics course does not give you a clear understanding of how free you really are, then you might want to consider going to a country where you are not so free to live as you want and you can see what a dictatorship really is.

American people are sheep in a herd being led straight to the cliff.  We're surrounded by billions of people outside of the US who now gag at the word Bush.  Id say Republican control (Bush) has quite possibly run a great crew of people into the ground.

You should not concern yourself with what billions of people outside of the US think because there is not a single one that would not be willing to swap nationalities with you.

You're website chooses to denounce those who seek the well being of people, not the state.  I applaud them.

This website is nothing more than private citizens exercising the Right of Free Speech. We want nothing more than the well being of people. We do not believe that Marxism, Communism, Socialism, or Terrorism add to the well being of anyone. That is what we denounce and apparently that is where you have the problem with us exercising our Freedom of Speech as guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights.

But somehow I doubt this email will make it in its entirety on your website.  You only highlight what you can work to debunk.

Looks like you were wrong. We have printed your e-mail in its entirety as we received it and we addressed every point as you requested.


The Upcoming American Boy  i.e.  your future

(and it didn't take a teacher to make me realize how terrible this country really can be)

Why would a teacher want to make you see America in such a negative light? If you think that this country is so terrible and you feel that there is nothing you can do about it, feel free to leave and relocate to another country where you feel more at home.


E-mails from Daniel Ducassi
1 of 3

23 May 2007

Daniel Ducassi wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your website is plagued with hypocrisy and ignorance.

Consider yourself corrected as you are wrong. Where have we been hypocritical and where have we written anything inaccurate or untrue.

Just as well there is purposeful misinterpretation for your own advantage all throughout the site. When given a quote for example, you take it out of context and interpret in a way that is obviously not the intended meaning of what is given.

We notice that you did not cite an example. We take great care in answering each e-mail point-by-point within the context that it was written.

Too often does it speak of individual freedoms being taken away but never does it address the rights of gays to be married or the right of people to smoke marijuana if they so choose.

While we believe in the pure and traditional form of marriage being between a Man and a Woman, we have addressed the rights of gays to be married in the article entitled "Applying for a Marriage License".

Perhaps you do not understand the reason for marriage, so allow us to enlighten you. Marriage is the first step in raising a family. Unless you adopt or violate the tradition of the homosexual lifestyle, you will not procreate. You probably will not agree with us, but as it relates to adoption, it is best if a child is placed into a two parent home with a Mother and a Father. It is an old concept that has worked since the dawn of civilization. Despite what the "vast wisdom" of the Political Correct crowd, there really is a difference in men and women. If this difference needs to be explained to you, then it is no wonder that this website does not make any logical sense to you.

The purpose of marriage is not to gain insurance or retirement entitlements. You are not supposed to get married to take advantage of tax benefits. But if it is, then you have to be able to justify everything in "Applying for a Marriage License" as normal and acceptable.

Marijuana is an illegal substance along with PCP, Heroin, and LSD. You might have missed that. There are a lot of things that are illegal even if all parties involved choose to do. Allow us to cite a few examples. Incest, purchasing explosives without a permit, practicing medicine without a license, and prostitution are all illegal. There is a reason that these activities are illegal that apparently you do not understand. We will not get into laws that govern the minimum age of consent.

The difference between animal rights movements taking away the "freedom" to eat meat and the difference to smoke a cigarette or to drive a car is the consideration that animals have rights too, their right to life superceding that of their consumption.

Animals have been killed for consumption the last 500 million years. It is a fact of nature. Here is something that you might want to consider.

"Every living thing, be it plant or animal, exploits every other living thing in nature in order to survive. Like it or not, that is nature."

Maybe the worst violations of common sense are the all too common accusations of every somewhat liberal conclusion being for a Marxist agenda with little to warrant it.

Take a look at the article "The Meaning of Marxism". Liberalism takes many, if not most, of its concepts and philosophies from Marxist doctrine. For example, the redistribution of wealth and maintaining an equal standard of living for everyone are key selling points of Marxist doctrine. What they do not tell you is the only way that this can be achieved is to lower productivity and the standard of living for everyone. Well... except for the people at the top and they are not going to allow a lower standard of living for themselves. If you want a good example of this, take a look at the standard of living in every country with a Marxist based government. Then compare it to the standard of living in the United States.

There is a truth that you do not understand.

"Capitalism allows for an ever increasing standard by which success is measured. Socialism, on the other hand, allows for an ever increasing standard of dependency."

This is where Liberalism reigns supreme. Liberalism is all about increasing dependency with its handouts and entitlements. But that probably depends on what you consider to be the primary role of government.

(That and somehow Marxism being inherently wrong.) The site, by all means, fails logic and reason.

Marxism is wrong! It is against all human nature. There is a reason that every single Communist country had to guard their borders with armed guards, dogs, mine fields, and walls. People were trying to get out as fast as they could. Remember the Berlin Wall. People were running into razor wire trying to escape.

Where have we been illogical? We have backed every argument with facts.

Post Script: Work on your grammar too.

If there is a grammatical error in anything we wrote, please specify exactly what it is.


E-mails from Daniel Ducassi
2 of 3

25 May 2007

Daniel Ducassi wrote:

Let's start from the top:
In regards to hypocrasy I did indirectly give an example. If you would like a clearer statement of it here it is: In response to: "11. Stop the sale, distribution, and export of cigarettes." You wrote : "What about the freedom and right to choose?"

You are referencing the editorial entitled "50 Difficult Things You Can Do To Save the Earth". What you do not seem to understand is that tobacco products are legal. It is a legal product yet everyone is trying to stop their use. If it is as dangerous as they say, it should be banned. No one really believes that it should be banned. We notice that there has never been a single tobacco farmer that has ever been protested for growing a dangerous substance.

Now when I mention marijuana what happened to their right to choose? The reason marijuana is illegal is quite unclear, its long-term effects seem to be that similar to smoking tobacco.

Marijuana is an illegal product. The reason that it is illegal does not matter. If you want to change the law, you have that right to try and implement a change.

Simply because it is illegal does not mean it is inherently evil, as shown by the Jim Crow laws. (Unless you are racist as well, in which case all argument of this type is mute)

Once again, let us reiterate that Marijuana is an illegal product. As far as being racist, there is nothing on the website to indicate that we support racism although there are many that would like to believe we are.

When I mention gay marriage, what about their right to choose?

They can choose to be with whomever you like. No one is stopping that.

Perhaps you do not understand the purpose of marriage. So let me enlighten you. It is the expression of (romantic) love between two individuals regardless of frontiers of sex or otherwise as long as both parties are willing.

While you might want it to be the definition, but that is not the case. Again, if you believe that, then you have to find no fault with the editorial "Applying for a Marriage License" that actually meets your definition.

Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments.

That is the traditional definition of marriage. But if you believe that your definition is more correct, then you have to agree with the above editorial because it explains your definition.

To further dwell on the "take things out of context" argument, and misinterpreting, I was talking about within the site itself and not the e-mails. Next, you do imply that Marxism is inherently wrong and inherently evil. You state it does not work, but look at the Kibutzes in Israel. (Please excuse any mispelling.)

The Kibbutz, a communal settlement usually a farm in Israel, is a good example. Marxist principles work on a small scale. The family unit is another perfect example. Food is shared. Clothing is provided as needed. Life on a Kibbutz is a simple life. There are not a lot of extras. But most important of all, the fruits of the labor of those within the Kibbutz are kept by the members of the Kibbutz. It is a large family. When the children grow up, they are expected to provide for themselves and are free to live their lives and make the choices that will determine the course of their future. If you do not like life upon the Kibbutz, you are free to leave anytime you wish. Such has never been true of any country with a Marxist government.

But on a large scale, Marxism is bad. Ask anyone from a country with a Marxist form of government. They are never free to leave as they see fit. In many cases, they are not even allowed to choose their profession or the professions available to them are limited. The government forbids many freedoms that are taken for granted in a free society. Hence, they are not free. Maybe you do not see this as inherently evil, but we do. The governments of these countries do not see this as evil. They see their policies as control and ownership. This is proven by their reluctance to allow the population the freedom to leave the country or even move about the country without permission.

They are communist and they work. Essentially, the Amish are communist and they work.

No, they are not Communists. Trying to say that the Amish are essentially Communists shows that you really do not know understand what Communism really is. Your statement is a complete misinterpretation and an idea that was taken out of context much like what you have accused us of doing. Just because the Amish live in a relative closed society, does not mean that they are Communists. It is the practice of Marxist programs by governments that we refer to as the problem.

Even the Soviet Union had great benefits compared to the regime of late absolutist Russia.

This is a good example. There were thousands upon thousands of people imprisoned for wanting to leave the Soviet Union. Jews and others that wanted to leave and relocate to the USA or Israel were fired from their jobs and often times placed into mental institutions.

(Universal Healthcare and Education.)

We have free education for every child. You never heard of public school system. The problems with the public school system come from Liberal policies and programs. We can direct you to another editorial on the website entitled "50 Years of Progress in Education".

The reason these massive  communist dictatorships failed and why people so desperately tried to escape was not because of the Marxist philosophy, no, but because they are dictatorships and not democratic.

You are saying that Marxism never had a fair chance. The only way that a Marxist government can exist is through a powerful government that is more powerful than the people. The government must control all aspects of social life because it is responsible for providing everything to its people. With the people being so heavily dependent on the government, the people are at the mercy of the government as opposed to being independent and self-reliant. That is why Marxism is inherently evil.

Liberals do not want to lower productivity and standard of living.

Actually, they do. They will not admit to this, but when you look at their policies, it becomes clear. They want everyone to rely on the government for everything. Their policies take away from those that actually produce and give it to those that do not. It is called "Redistribution of Wealth".

In fact, the point of these reforms is to raise the standard of living for the poor.

And how do they do this? They tax the people that could provide jobs for everyone. They speak of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Since 1964, there has been over $6 trillion spent on the war on poverty and according to the Left-Wing, things are worse than ever. What they do not tell you is that there are more millionaires in this country than at any time in history.

An economic of lasseiz faire on the other hand has been shown to fail morality time and time again with child labor and ridiculous wages. A current day example of this would be China.

And you use a Marxist country as an example? We have child labor laws that are enforced. And as far as the Minimum Wage laws are concerned, only a small percentage of workers work for minimum wage. This is a starting wage, not a goal to be achieved.

They practically do have a policy of lasseiz faire and their human rights records are atrocious as well as the standard of living. So by not implementing some sort of social welfare , one would end up with the situation of China, certainly not something this site means to condone, but does. (Another example of hypocrasy.)

Where is America looking like China? When in history has America ever looked like modern day China with regards to the example you just gave? China is a far cry from having a free economy like America. The only reason that they have anything that resembles our economy is the acquisition of Hong Kong from the British. And when it was clear that Hong Kong was going back to China, everyone made sure that their money was protected by moving their hard earned money out of the reach of the Chinese government.

As far as China's human rights records, they are atrocious as are every country that has a Marxist form of government, which only makes our point. On a large scale, not the family unit or life on a Kibbutz that have very limited numbers of people, Marxism is wrong and inherently evil.

And where have we condoned it???

Simply because eating animals and exploiting other living beings has happened in the past does not justify it. That is the same argument plantation owners in the South had.

You are equating ranching or animal farming with slavery. You do not understand why it is different. Maybe you are right. Like the slaves, perhaps we should free all animals and allow them to go free and live on their own.

What would happen then? You want to free 18 million farm animals to freely roam America. That is the same argument that the Abolitionist had. The fact is that there is a difference. The Slaves were human beings, NOT animals, and as human beings they that can assimilate into society and become productive citizens. And if you take the editorial seriously, you might even have a point. (Note sarcastic tone)

Note: Please cite your source for this quote: "Socialism, on the other hand, allows for an ever increasing standard of dependency."

Let's get the quote right.

"Capitalism allows for an ever increasing standard by which success is measured. Socialism, on the other hand, allows for an ever increasing standard of dependency."

It is a fact. Socialism is all about dependency. Socialized programs cause dependency on the government that provides the service. Socialized Medicine causes the population to become dependent on the government for whatever level of medicine that the government deems affordable. Somehow, America has gotten this far without Socialized Medicine. We have the best healthcare in the world, except for those that believe that implementing Socialist programs are the way to go.

Those that say that everyone needs healthcare will argue the point that the government should provide it. People need a lot of things. People need a place to live. People need a means of transportation. People need food. Why should the government be required to provide these and other needs to an entire country? People become dependent when they rely on others to provide basic services that they can and should provide for themselves.

The purpose of government is to provide the population the things necessary to live that the individual cannot provide as individuals, such as the building of roads and highways, a military to protect the country's sovereignty and the lives of its citizens, and to provide and maintain a justice system. But it should not provide the population that which the individual can provide for themselves. By allowing the individual to provide for themselves, the individual will do a better job thus maintain a higher standard of living.

And in regards to the grammar /spelling problem, there was even a mistake in the response to my e-mail. For that specific example, here it is: "Well... expect for the people at the top and they are not going to allow a lower standard of living for themselves." I cannot blame you for I do not know how much time, if any, you have to edit this.

You are absolutely right, there was a mistake. We have corrected it. We did write "expect" instead of "except". And just as a reminder, we have not made any corrections for spelling or grammar on any e-mails that we receive.


E-mails from Daniel Ducassi
3 of 3

26 May 2007

Daniel Ducassi wrote:

Again from the top:

When I speek of the freedom to choose to smoke marijuana or tobacco, my point is that you must speak of them as one as their long term effects are similar in terms of law, regardless of current legality.

If you are saying that marijuana has health risks, then why do you want to legalize it? Tobacco is on the way out. There are less and less places where you can smoke and less people are smoking today.

I am speaking not in the world of what is, but rather the world of what ought to be. And, if you claim tobacco should be legal but marijuana should not be then that is true hypocrisy. (I personally do believe tobacco should stay legal, even as a liberal, but because of this I am forced to believe that marijuana must be legalized.)

We have not said that tobacco should be legal; we have simply stated that it is legal. We have not said that marijuana should be illegal; we have just stated that it is illegal. That is not hypocrisy. We look at this from a point of view of obeying the laws that govern civilized society.

Maybe you should ask the question, "Will the legalization of marijuana make this country a better place and improve life and the world as we know it?" We do not think that it will.

With the racism comment, I wasn't accusing you but rather that was a friendly joke, not meant to be taken seriously.

We did not take it other than a friendly joke.

In regards to gay marriage, my definition states "two individuals" while your's states "a man and a women." Very different. Their right to choose to be with each other is different from their right to be married to each other.

You are right, it is very different. Our definition states a man and a woman because that is the way it has traditionally been and that is the way the law is written. You did not address the editorial "Applying for a Marriage License". It backs up your definition stating "two individuals". If you say that your definition is acceptable, then you have to agree with the editorial about marriage, which for some reason, you will not comment on its content.

Furthermore, Marxism has never been tryed in a democratic setting has it?

You mean aside from the $7 trillion that has been spent in the United States on Social Welfare programs and entitlements since 1964. How has that worked? It has been a dismal failure. Government dependency has increased and the Liberal Democrats in Congress have dragged their feet in making any reform at all. Not until the Republicans took the house in 1994 was there any real welfare reform.

With any welfare program, the government has to implement a program to redistribute the wealth earned by others and give it to those that did not and would not earn it. What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine, share and share alike, right?

The problem is that when the government takes from one and gives it to others, there is always inefficiency that causes waste. The money never really gets to the people that so-called need it, but it always gets taken away by those that have worked hard to earn it. Regardless of the administration, when has the government ever done anything with any real efficiency?

It is not the purpose of government to provide for people what they can provide for themselves.

You simply assume that Lenin-Marxism is all Marxism, however Trotsky tried to create a more democratic version of Communism. Soviet Russia was a garbage regime because it was riddled with hypocrisy and a dictatorship, not because it was marxist.

That is one of the inherent problems with Marxism. Big government is not efficient.

The Amish are essentially Marxist because all production is generally collective and all work towards to greater good for the community. They essentially follow the tenet of "From each according to his need, to each according to his ability."

The Amish are not Marxists. Each Amish family owns and controls their land. They own their land and farm it as they see fit. They provide for their family first. They are independent and self-reliant. They do not follow the tenet of "From each according to his need, to each according to his ability." They all work to keep the community successful, but they are not dependent on anyone other than themselves. They do not take charity or handouts. They are hardworking people that do not believe in entitlements. You are misunderstanding their religious conviction and how it translates into their community as some kind of Marxism. Just because they are good neighbors among themselves does not mean that they hold Marxism doctrine.

The Soviet Union, very early on before Stalin, did have many benefits that Nicholas II was unable to provide. Their was even increased productivity.

The productivity of the Soviet Union was never that great. Marxist based economies are not that efficient.

China DOES practice complete unrestrained capitalism. Their government may be communist, but their economy is complete lasseiz faire. America was just like China here in the industrial revolution, just before the rise of Unions. This site does condone it indirectly by not supporting minimum wages and defaming the idea of any sort of social welfare, essentially advocating a lassiez faire economy. (Exactly like modern day China.)

They are practicing Capitalism because Communism and other Marxist based forms of government have failed. The only way they can stay competitive and grow economically in the world market is through Capitalism.

As far as the minimum wage issue, why should an employer have to pay any employee more than they are worth? What you do not seem to understand is that the minimum wage is an entry level wage. It is not a goal; it is a start unless you have very low goals and do not plan to advance into a higher paying position.

Using your number of 18 million farm animals we can see that they can assimilate into the environment. Compare the human population of more than 300 million to that measly 18 million and you can tell why. Socialism does not promote dependency, only a base on which people can grow.

And they grow more dependent with every entitlement. Socialism absolutely promotes dependency whether by choice or not.

Releasing all farm animals in America to run wild and assimilate into the wild is just not a good idea. Introducing that many foreign species into the wild would cause so much damage to the indigenous creatures that they might not ever recover. That would be an insane act of irresponsibility.

Nobody wants to live in the soup line. But as long as enough social welfare exists, those who needed to work tooth and nail to get just enough food and medical care can now work to achieve greater good, while still maintaning the heart of a capitalist society, people helping the economy for their own selfish reasons, or better described by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory. There needs to be something their to help the poor achieve a greater standard of living.

Living at the expense of hard working taxpayers that actually produce something is nothing to be proud of. America became great not because of entitlements or handouts, but because of hard work, independence, and self-reliance. These three characteristics cannot be emphasized enough. The poor cannot become independent if they have to depend on welfare all of their lives. There are generations of people that have been on welfare all of their lives. They even say that they work hard for their welfare check. We are not exactly sure what they do other than go down and stand in line waiting for their check to be handed to them. They have become so dependent on the government giving them money earned by others that they have no work ethic at all.

The whole idea of government "dependency" is nonsense because as mentioned earlier, "nobody wants to live on the soup line." America does NOT have the best healthcare in the world.

You are saying that there is no such thing as "government dependency". While nobody wants to live on the soup line, there are many that will accept that entitlement and accept the enslavement to the government because it is easier to surrender to the welfare check than it is to get a job, work 40+ hours a week, and make a career. The "soup line", metaphorically speaking, is just enough to keep them dependent on whoever provides that addictive welfare check.

We have more than 37 million people without healthcare in the United States. That's more than 15% of our population.

And why is that. Well, one reason is because of the liability involved. Lawsuits that have sent insurance rates through the roof have raised the cost of everything medical. And who can we thank for that. Liberals like John Edwards. The mindset that the trip to the doctor is free and the insurance company will pay for it eliminates competition and therefore costs go up. Then we all end up paying more. It is the dependent mindset that the expense is covered by SOMEONE ELSE and is not the responsibility of the person that actually receives the service that is the problem.

Likely the best example of the best healthcare in the world would be in Britain.

America use to be until the government got involved and started setting the stage for Socialized Medicine and thereby started increasing the cost of medicine. Of course, if you do not have insurance, and you show up at the Emergency Room, they cannot reject you regardless of your ability to pay for medical services. The hospital is required by law to take care of you.

Having both privatized healthcare AND socialized healthcare for those who cannot afford it. Rather than letting our poor die (not very productive) they can live and work (much more productive.) (Please excuse any point not mentioned, I have to study for finals and therefore do not have much time to reply.)

Daniel Ducassi

How much better is the privatized healthcare over the socialized healthcare? We do not recall letting our poor die as opposed to letting our rich live forever.

Good luck on your exams.


22 May 2007

SIRJSK@***.com wrote:

At first I was thinking you were a legitimate group. But after checking your list of evil people, its obvious you people are the real terrorists and evil and blood thirsty to boot.

What is it that we have done or said that qualifies us as terrorists? From your letter, our only crime is reporting the actual acts of terrorism by the people listed on this website, which seems to be worse than the acts of terrorism that we have reported according to you. We are not sure how that makes us "the real terrorists and evil and blood thirsty to boot." You do not seem to want to give credit to the people that actually committed the crimes such as Vandalism, Burglary, Identity Theft, Arson, etc...

Who is it that you believe should not be on this website? Have we written anything that is untrue or inaccurate? And please, be specific.

Well, thanks for revealing yourself to the world so we can keep it straight who has good intentions and who is down right to the bone a scumbag product of mother earth.

Adolf Hitler had "good intentions". Lee Harvey Oswald had "good intentions". The Ku Klux Klan had "good intentions". The road to Hell is paved with "good intentions". Perhaps "good intentions" are all that matter to you because that is a factor of Liberalism that is often overlooked. It is not the results that matter or how many are people harmed in the process, it is only the "good intentions" that matter. Unfortunately, these people in a show of "good intentions" in the tradition of the Ku Klux Klan, are more likely to commit Arson in order to get what they want. But it would be our guess that you probably do not consider that to be a bad thing.

What exactly do you consider "good intentions"?

Which one of the people and/or groups on this website do you "feel" we have mislabeled? Which of their good intentions have we confused with acts of terrorism?

And of course in typical Liberal fashion you fall back to the only strategy that shows you are out of ideas and have nothing else intelligent to argue... you resort to insults, name-calling, and personal attacks.

I am comforted you will live the life you deserve..

We sure hope so. We have paid the price in sweat and blood to give you the opportunity to live under an umbrella of freedom that is the envy of the world.


E-mails from Richard John Dring
1 of 2

19 May 2007

Richard John Dring wrote:

I must say all the hard work put into your website, was a waste of time, you are proving no point at all, and before you begin to assume, No im not Muslim or Islam or however you would like to put it.

There is no particular point we are trying to make other than bringing out the truth about groups and people that actively engage in supporting and/or committing terrorist actions. We also show the dangers of Marxism and related doctrines and the groups that embrace these philosophies.

I was born in the UK, i am 100% british and have no arab/islam roots whatsoever.

I work in the oil and gas industry and i am 32 years old, and i was browsing through some sites and came accross your's whilst wasting some time away at work.

Wasting time while at work does not reflect well on your work ethic, but we do appreciate you visiting our website.

I must say you do indeed need to get out more because your site and the readings from the Quran are completely inacurate, i currently work 26 weeks a year off my life in Morocco and Muslims in the press and on the news tabloids are poorly and indeed wrongly portraid.

We have pointed that out the danger that is Radical Islam. We have cited historical facts throughout the website, facts that you have not disputed. Where are we inaccurate with our quotes from the Koran?

Islam means Peace and believe me it is the best religion out there i work with muslims, eat with muslims and i am a boss of muslims at work and believe me they have more respect for other people as any other culture or religion out there(believe me ive travelled), Now i presume you are either english or american and being that, you do not have anything to be proud off.

It is the radical practice of Islam as it is practiced and taught in mosques around the world today that makes us question their motives. Take a good look at "HAMAS Charter of 1988", "Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism", and "The Truth About the Palestinian People". The way that Islam is practiced by today's radical leaders, there is nothing that remotely resembles anything peaceful or civilized, at least by western standards. But feel free to correct us if you believe that we are wrong.

Assuming that you believe that it is the best religion out there, then why have you not converted to Islam.

For us as Americans, we have plenty of reason to be proud. There is a reason that most of the world wants to come to the United States than all of the other countries combined. There is a reason that whenever a disaster happens anywhere in the world, everyone looks to and expects America to send money, food, and water.

Anyway maybe your just trying to grab attention and trying to potray another ' Maddox ' image, God knows what. If you read the quran properly the first teachings in it clearly state that 'No Muslim can either hurt another being unless physical harm has been bestowed before' and also 'GOD FORBIDS SUICIDE' so clearly the terrorists you so call ' Muslim ' are clearly NOT Muslim.

Again, we will say that we oppose the brand of Radical Islam that the Imams keep calling for Jihad. It does appear that many of the suicide bombers that keep showing up in public markets are indeed Muslim. At least they seem to think that they are devout followers. They keep quoting from the Koran before their explosive vest detonates. We have several examples on the website. This is what we oppose.

Another good example would be the 9-11 hijackers and all of the followers of Islam that were dancing in the street shortly after the World Trade Center was hit by airplanes. And please do not even try to explain that those responsible for the 9-11 attacks were Mossad, the Israeli government, or President Bush's Administration.

And of course, you have forgotten about the videotaped beheadings that have graced the airways of the world news networks. In case you missed it, here is an example of their handiwork.

Beheading of Japanese Hostage Kouda Shouse
by Islamic Terrorists

Beware, it is very graphic but it a good example of the finer points of Radical Islam and those that practice it.

Anyway im sure plenty of people have tried clearing you up on that, so i wont waste my breath.

By The Way what happened with the Irish terrorists that killed Veronica Guerin, the irish bombings that bombed england? the world war 1, world war 2, i can go on and on but like i said i wont waste my breath.

We have no idea what happened to the terrorists/drug dealers that killed Veronica Guerin. Her murder was never mentioned anywhere on this website. What made you ask that question? Perhaps you are confusing the content of this website with some other website you were visiting while wasting time at work.

As far as World War I and World War II are concerned, it was America that came to the aid of England, France, and the rest of Europe and reestablished Freedom and Democracy throughout Europe.

Thank you for having the time to read my email.


Richard John Dring.

No problem. Write us anytime. It was a pleasure to hear from you.


E-mails from Richard John Dring
2 of 2

20 May 2007

Richard John Dring wrote:

Ok, i wont waste my time futher but all i will say to the reply you made is that its stupid, and the quran quotes are indeedly WRONG, as in there religion no quote at all or no word in the quran can be translated from arabic, it is an impossible task, so seen as your quote is in english, your wrong.

We did not realize that you were fluent in Arabic, which you must be if you are telling us that the Koran cannot be translated and that we have misquoted the Koran.

You still have not said where we have incorrectly translated the Koran. And please do not insult our intelligence by saying that it is impossible to translate the Koran from Arabic into English.

A fellow collegue at work gave me this website for you to check out, there are FREE books which simply explains the islam way regarding terrorism.

Perhaps you should tell your colleague read our website.

Idci Books

Jewish Occupation! ,

What you do not understand or refuse to understand is the radical view of Islam that is taught to Muslims today is what they use as a justification for terrorism. To them, Islam is their reason for Terrorism. Perhaps HAMAS, Hezbollah, and the Islamic leadership in Iran and around the world that are teaching hatred toward the United States, Israel, and other "infidels" should read these books as they are the are the ones who seem to have the misconception of Islam. All we are doing at this website is reporting and commenting on the outcome.

We have numerous examples of this presented on the page "Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism". If in your view these people are not truly Muslim because they merely use Islam as their excuse for their terrorist attacks, then perhaps your co-workers and the rest of the Muslim community should stand up, hit the streets, and speak against them by the millions.

Also you asked me why i havnt converted, well simply because i was raised as a catholic,

By your own words you consider that to be a lesser religion. Why is that? If, as you say, Islam "is the best religion out there", what does that say about Catholicism? It seems to us that the Pope and your fellow choir members might have some issue with that statement.

One thing i will point out is that the muslims in the western sociaty are completely different that the eastern, they simply Drink,Fight,Kill and even murder in the western sociaty and that is simply against there beliefs and the Quran, hence why they are not muslim.


Richard John Dring.

This shows your complete lack of knowledge on history. Muslims have been fighting and killing each other for thousands of years. And if you believe that they do not consume alcohol, then you are not as informed as you think you are.

What you do not seem to grasp is that we have nothing against the peaceful practice of Islam. But when Islam is used as a reason to commit terrorist acts around the world, then we have a problem. They use Islam as an excuse for every act of terrorism. We have examples of this practice. They all say their prayers to Allah before they kill as many innocent people as possible in the market place. They say their prayers as they videotape the beheading of some person they have kidnapped off the streets. And there is no doubt that these people are Muslim and practice the teachings of Muhammad and Islam. You can deny it or make excuses for it saying that they are not truly Muslims as much as you like, but that does not change the reality of Islam today.


17 May 2007

Adele Anile wrote:

It was with both shock and disbelief that I read through a small section of your website specifically the Animal Liberation information. I am not in any group nor am I involved in any acts mentioned, but I just ask you to take a moment and sit down and watch a video of what goes on inside Huntington, no-one can endure watching that and tell me it is right? you can honestly compare what these activists are doing to HAMAS or other Muslim terrorist groups?
I am so sorry that a website like yours exists, where is your compassion? where is your faith? these people may take whatever extreme measures to get the point across but NO ONE has been killed EVER.
Please take a moment and watch a video of what exactly they are protesting about and you may learn something and then use your time to stop practices like that occurring instead of wasting all of your time being against people who are trying to stop something so horrific happening.
Mrs A Anile

Let us examine this e-mail point by point.

It was with both shock and disbelief that I read through a small section of your website specifically the Animal Liberation information. I am not in any group nor am I involved in any acts mentioned, but I just ask you to take a moment and sit down and watch a video of what goes on inside Huntington, no-one can endure watching that and tell me it is right? you can honestly compare what these activists are doing to HAMAS or other Muslim terrorist groups?

It is good to hear that you are not an active member of any of these groups and allow us to say that we do not believe that you are in anyway an evil person. However, it is somewhat disconcerting that you seem to sympathize with their actions. You do not see that this is terrorism. If you do not believe that these actions are not terrorism, then you have to give a pass to the Ku Klux Klan when they engage in burning down black churches where no one was hurt. You have to believe that the Ku Klux Klan is not engaging in anything more than whatever you consider your animal liberation friends to be doing. You are ignoring the fact that the act is the same and it is designed to inflict terror into anyone that they hate and anyone that opposes them.

As far as comparing them to HAMAS, Hezbollah, or any other of the Islamic terrorist groups, YES, we can make the comparison. If no one had been killed in the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, would you still consider it to be something other than terrorism? What would you call it... Criminal Mischief, Disorderly Conduct, or Vandalism?

If you agree with the direct actions of the animal rights groups, then you would have to give every Islamic terrorist or white supremacist group a pass for burning a Jewish temple or synagogue. Is that what you are advocating? You are trying to legitimize their actions. We are not sure why you believe it is acceptable to stalk, harass, intimidate and/or terrorize law abiding citizens, but the destruction cause by eco-terrorist groups are nothing but terrorist acts that are in line with every Islamic terrorist group and the Ku Klux Klan.

"This is a classic case of terrorism, despite their protests of lofty humane goals. It was pure luck no one was killed or injured by their actions. If that is (humane), then the Ku Klux Klan did not commit terrorism."
-- Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Peifer

You seem to think that HLS is doing what they do just for the fun of it. There is obviously something to be gained by the research that HLS does or they would not be doing it. If you agree that they are in it for the money, they would not be spending the money doing research that no one wants. By the way, do you even know what they are researching? Are they doing research for cancer, spinal cord injuries, or Parkinson's disease to which a cure will be found?

I am so sorry that a website like yours exists...

All we have done is to report the facts. Why are you sorry that we have collected and published this information? Have we written something that was not factual? What do you wish to dispute as inaccurate or untrue? It is too bad that you have a hard time accepting the truth that we have written about these people and groups, but let us reiterate that you have not disputed a single fact, you just do not like our existence or the fact that we have reported on exactly what these people have done. Keep in mind that we have gotten much of the information directly from these groups such as North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO).

Many people are sorry that we exist for the sole reason that we do exist. They have to stop us yet they cannot dispute any of the facts contained within the website. They seem to have a problem with Free Speech especially when it factually reports or contradicts everything they say and do.

... where is your compassion? where is your faith?

Where is your compassion? These people actively target and work at destroying people's lives. They do everything they can to stalk, harass, intimidate and terrorize people to get what they want. They even target children and they proudly admit it. The North American Animal Liberation Press Office exists only to broadcast their "achievements" through communiqués and encourage others to do the same. What faith do you place in these people that would engage in terrorizing families and why? Again we ask, WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION?

these people may take whatever extreme measures to get the point across but NO ONE has been killed EVER.

What are you going to say when someone is burned alive or does that even matter? You probably did not read the entire Animal Liberation Front page so allow us to present to you these excerpts.

Communiqué from ALF activists
Date: December 23, 2005
Institution targeted: HLS Customer GlaxoSmithKline

"Last night the ALF vandalized the home of president of Hofstra University, Stuart Rabinowitz. We did this because he and the university made the poor choice of naming Collin Goddard, CEO to OSI Pharmaceuticals the keynote speaker at their mid-year graduation commencement. Collin's financial partner is GlaxoSmith Kline VP Robert Ingram, one of Huntingdon Life Science's largest customers. Collin, Robert, GSK and OSI have not been able to grasp the message that supporting HLS is not acceptable. What we did is just the tip of the iceberg when looking at what we have in store for their camp. So we took aim at Stuart Rabinowitz and made it loud and clear that if you climb in to bed with Collin and GSK they can expect a whole lot of grief. Stuart Rabinowitz's whole house was covered with spraypainted slogans. Everyone who is in arms reach of GSK and HLS can expect similar treatment."

Keep in mind that they did not target HLS, they targeted the president of Hofstra University because he named Collin Goddard, CEO to OSI Pharmaceuticals as the keynote speaker at their graduation ceremony. That was his crime. He had nothing to do with HLS yet he became a victim.

Next we see the incompetence of these "peaceful" animal rights people. They always say that they only target animal abusers and they always make sure there is no one in the building when they burn it to the ground. What happens when they are caught in the act? How hard are they going to fight so as not to get caught? When is a body going to be found in the burned remains of one of their direct actions?

The Animal Liberation Front took credit for leaving a "Molotov cocktail" outside the Bel-Air home of a UCLA primate researcher. The ALF boasted in a Communiqué that it had left a bottle filled with a flammable liquid on the porch of Lynn Fairbanks' home in Bel-Air on June 30, 2006. The problem is that the explosive device was mistakenly placed on the doorstep of the faculty member's neighbor, a 70-year-old woman. This level of incompetence speaks volumes about the organization, but the failed arson attempt points at a much more basic failing of the group.

This organization originally centered its efforts on nonviolent resistance such as releasing test subjects from laboratories. But their tactics have grown to include fire-bombings, vandalism and physical attacks. They have threatened people connected to animal testing. And now, they are endangering and targeting innocent people.

It was only by chance that the Molotov cocktail failed to explode. According to arson investigators, had the device functioned properly, the 70-year-old woman and her tenant would have had a very difficult time escaping because the house is backed against a hillside. These people almost killed an innocent people. And it was done with total and complete indifference whether or not anyone was hurt or killed.

The FBI and UCLA are offering a reward of $60,000 for information leading to the culprit who left the would-be fire bomb at the house.

The FBI can be reached at:

FBI Los Angeles
Suite 1700, FOB
11000 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024-3672
(310) 477-6565

What if that elderly woman and her renter were burned alive? It is only by luck that they are alive. If you know who they were, would you have called the FBI and reported it or would you have tried to legitimize the act of terrorism and considered the mistake as collateral damage like Timothy McVeigh said of the children that were killed in the Oklahoma bombing?

Please take a moment and watch a video of what exactly they are protesting about and you may learn something and then use your time to stop practices like that occurring instead of wasting all of your time being against people who are trying to stop something so horrific happening.
Mrs A Anile

They are free to protest. No one is stopping them from protesting. They are free to write their Congressman and lobby to change the existing laws or pass new laws. These methods are legal. It is their illegal activities, such as Stalking, Harassment, Vandalism and Arson, that we oppose. You use this opposition as reason to vilify and loathe our existence. Would you feel the same way if they burned down your house with your children under the guise of stopping practices they do not like? What would you learn from that?

As far as looking at videos, take a look at medical school training videos of burn victims and you can see the inevitable future of these Arsons.


E-mails from Rob Addison
1 of 2

15 May 2007

Robert Addison wrote:


Can I please be added to your list of terrorists? I am a left-leaning Political Science researcher from New Zealand and I think your website is paranoid and ridiculous. Opposing yourself to left-wing discourse completely contradicts the terms of your national contitution that so eloquently grants fundamental human rights to your citizens. But I suppose you'd say that people deserve the right to freedoms, just as long as they're the right freedoms, huh guys? Or did I just implicate myself as a terrorist with that statement?

A somewhat blown away NZer,
Rob Addison


It is always good to hear from someone of your intelligence and education. You consider this website to be "paranoid and ridiculous", yet you have not disputed a single fact on the website. We completely understand your need to try and stop any and all dissenting views against Left-Wing doctrine. It has been proven throughout history that it is necessary for Marxist doctrine to eliminate any and all contrary views. Allow us to reiterate that we have never tried to stop anyone from exercising the Right of Free Speech. But the same cannot be said for the Left-Wing.

Perhaps you have not fully availed yourself of the information contained within this website. Take a look at "Left-Wing Protesters - A Photographic Record". No one on the Right is making any attempt to stop these people from exercising their Right of Free Speech. And, as you can see, we have documented it for all posterity. But for whatever reason, you do not seem to appreciate our efforts. You see our recording of history as some sort of an opposing view. We see it as evidence of the truth, which may be the problem you actually have with our existence.

How does our opposing "Left-Wing discourse" contradict the terms of any fundamental human rights? Are we not allowed the right to an opinion even if it does not agree with your opinion? Apparently, that is your view as you think that we are wrong for doing so. Despite your opposition, we are allowed to have an opinion. What you seem to be having a hard time accepting is that our opposing opinion is backed by facts rather than the emotions that dominate Liberal rhetoric. Keep in mind that we do not want the Left-Wing to stop speaking their minds. We want them to keep up the actions that made them famous. And when they do, we will proudly document it, which is what we have done and this is where you seem to have a problem with us. Perhaps you need to read "Quotes From Famous People" to refresh your understanding of the Left-Wing and their commentary.

At no point have we ever tried to take away any of the rights or freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution of the United States. The same cannot be said for the Left-Wing with their Marxist based belief system.

Let us examine that last sentence of your e-mail.

But I suppose you'd say that people deserve the right to freedoms, just as long as they're the right freedoms, huh guys? Or did I just implicate myself as a terrorist with that statement?

You would suppose wrong. You want to believe that with all you being, but you would be completely wrong. We are not sure where you got that idea. What freedoms are you referring to? What freedoms do you think that we are depriving people? You are not being very specific.

No, you did not implicate yourself as a terrorist. Instead, you have given us the impression of someone that speaks from talking points without actually knowing what they are saying or without having proper knowledge of the subject matter. You offer absolutely no facts at all.

The strange thing is how the talking points of the Left-Wing are the same in other countries. Here it is that you are in New Zealand and yet here you are promoting the exact same Left-Wing rhetoric that is heard throughout the United States. You stand for squashing dissenting opinion especially when that opinion is backed by facts that do not agree with your doctrine.

And as far as being added to our "List of Terrorists", so far you have not actually done anything that we know of to earn you a spot there. Perhaps you just want to be given a title or position without actually earning it. This seems to be a very Left-leaning mentality. It is always seems to boil down to what can others do to give you what you want rather than what can you do to earn it.

And speaking of depriving citizens of Constitutional Rights, we thought we might leave you with this quote from a former President of the United States. No one will ever accuse this President of not being a truly shining example of a classic Left-Wing Liberal holding a classic Left-Wing philosophy - Higher taxes, more restrictive government, and less freedom for the individual.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-- President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A


E-mails from Rob Addison
2 of 2

16 May 2007

Robert Addison wrote:

But I suppose your Patriot Act defends the fundamental human rights of the individual - except those that the state can pull up for inspection with no other reason than because of the colour of their skin.

The Patriot Act allows the government the ability to maintain the security of this nation. This is one of the responsibilities of the government that is set forth in the US Constitution. The Patriot Act, while not perfect, offers the means to defend and protect this country by the federal government as is required by the US Constitution. It is much better to detain a few people that raise suspicions rather than to have another massive attack where thousands are killed. If the attacks on 9-11 had happened at 12 noon, the death toll would have been closer to 20,000 rather than the 3000 that were killed.

The one thing that you may not have noticed is that most of the Islamic terrorists that have pledged death to Americans tend to have common characteristics. If you hear about a suicide bomber, it is normal to initially believe that the bomber was a Muslim and probably a male between the ages of 18 and 30 years old. The world does not automatically think that it is a Swiss national because the Swiss people do not become suicide bombers. If al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS, and the other Islamic terrorists groups want the world to stop associating Arabs and Terrorism in these terms, perhaps they should stop raising their children to be suicide bombers and cease all other terrorist actions that have made them famous around the world. It is nothing more than basic probability that comes from rational thinking.

This past week, there was a group of six Islamic terrorists that were plotting to kill as many soldiers as possible in Ft. Dix, New Jersey. The person that turned them in was of Arab heritage. Sorry if all of the terrorists were Arab, but facts are facts.

Perhaps a brief history lesson is required.

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of PanAm Flight 103!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack during the 1972 Olympics in Munich!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11/01!

  • REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on London, England on 7/7/05!

  • REMEMBER all the civilian lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!

  • REMEMBER the thousands of the car bombs that have exploded in public areas and killed innocent civilians in Israel and around the world!

This is a very brief history over the last 50 years. There is a common factor within these terrorist actions and you do not need anyone to tell you what that is.

What's more, you've made the incredible assumption that because I don't support your outlook, I am thus a Marxist.

We NEVER made that statement. At no point did we ever refer to you as a Marxist. We have shown that the Left-Wing has a Marxist agenda and we stand by that observation. This has been proven through countless examples within this website and throughout history.

You are the one that requested to be added to the "list of terrorists". You are the one that inferred that the people and groups on this website were like-minded to yourself having "left-leaning" political views. The people and groups that we consider to be dangerous all have Marxist and/or Socialist doctrine as core beliefs.

I have already expressed my enthusiasm for individual rights and see the American constitution as document that captures that brilliantly. I also believe in free-markets, and in allowing businesses to function so they can serve society in the numerous ways that they already do, both in NZ, the US, and the rest of the developed world. Admittedly, I have liberal-social views, but only with the maxim of maintaining the fundamental rights of the individual - as expressed in your constitution.

Liberal views as practiced in the United States seldom do anything other than provide an ever increasing level of dependence on government.

So I shouldn't have to explain that I'm not a Marxist, and for you to say so means that either you haven't picked up a history book in the last 100 years, or your organisation has an agenda to falsely defamate all people with opposing views as Enemy of the State No. 1 (although you're a little behind the times). This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of human rights to me.

We have defamed no one and we never called you a Marxist. We have quoted and documented the actions done by those that have been taught to hate everything American. Again, we will state that you are the one that requested to be listed among the Marxist groups on the website. It could be that it is you that needs to study up on history. Everything we have written, we have backed up with facts. You have offered nothing to strengthen or even substantiate your argument.

But my initial reason for concern was the statement that comes up 'Eliminating the Planet of Liberals One At a Time', which completely debunks any notion of your organisation believing in free speech and other human rights.

You really need to have more of a sense of humor. We had hoped it would be taken as changing the minds through the intellectual process much like "Eliminating the Planet of Poverty One Person At a Time", but that concept seems to have been lost on you.

If you believed in the things that I am talking about, you would feel no need to eliminate the planet of liberals because you would value their contribution to politics.

We have clearly stated that we do not want to keep these people quiet.

But I think you probably do believe in those fundamental human rights that I have repeatedly referred to, just as long as they're the right ones and granted to the right kinds of people.

You want to believe that we want to deprive people of their rights with every fiber of your being. Such is not the case and you know it. We are not really sure of who you are talking about when you say the "right kinds of people". We do not understand where you got that from.

Clearly that's the difference between myself and your organisation.

There might be a couple of other differences. We addressed everything in your e-mail, but there were a couple of questions that you never did answer.

How does opposing "Left-Wing discourse" contradict the terms of any fundamental human rights?

Are we not allowed the right to an opinion even if it does not agree with your opinion?

Despite my complete abhorrence and disbelief toward your organisation, I value your contribution, and I wish you the best of luck. Thanks for the chat.

Kind regards,

Rob Addison

You have not disputed a single fact presented anywhere on the website although you have been polite and courteous. It could be that you are seeing this from an "emotional" aspect without considering what is actually contained within the website.

And you are very welcome for the chat.


15 May 2007

erika wrote:

"impractical thinking" is one of the definitions of "idieology".
I don't think that not abusing my dog is "impractical thinking."  I don't think that not eating beef, chicken fish, or anything with a mother is "impractical thinking".
If you insist on calling me an "idealologist" because I love my parents, my family, and my European-bred country of America, then so be it. If you think I'm a terrorist because I think eating my brother, my mother, or my dog is wrong, then so be it.
Did I mention you're an idiot?


If you do not wish to eat fish or chicken or beef, no one is forcing you to. You are free to eat pretty much whatever you wish to sustain your life. We are not sure where you came up with the term "impractical thinking". Where was this on our website? And as far as us calling you an "idealologist", we have never addressed anyone as an "idealologist" and are not sure what that is. We are also unaware that we have ever addressed you as a terrorist or even acknowledged your existence.

We are not really clear on what you are talking about, but we would like to hear from you again showing a bit more clarity so that we may be able to respond accurately.

However, if you believe that animals have the same rights that human have then you must believe that humans have the same rights as animals. That being said, if a lion (or any other predator) has a right to hunt and kill other animals for food, then why do we as humans not have that same right.

Now, let us examine the very last sentence of your e-mail.

"Did I mention you're an idiot?"

With that rhetorical question, you cut us to the very core and we are not sure if we will recover from that vicious personal attack. (Note sarcastic tone)

If you read the many e-mails throughout the Hate Mail section of this website, you can see that many have and we proudly print their e-mails for all to see. Congratulations, you are among intellectual giants, some of which believe that it would have been a good idea to have given Saddam Hussein nuclear weapons.

And in typical Liberal fashion, you show your true level of education and knowledge in your last sentence when end your letter name-calling that shows that you are out of ideas and in the first sentence with your spelling of "idieology".


We had an e-mail from a reader worthy of printing in response to e-mails received at this website in February from Joe and Major Jeff Tanzer.

19 April 2007

Daniel Norton wrote:

This site just made my day, and I was having a horrible day. Thank God for Google and random image searches. I live in Norfolk and I'm getting tired of seeing "peta people" every where I go. Oh, and by the way, to all the people who have bashed President Bush on your site, they should thank him, because of him and people like me, they still HAVE the right to do that.

This is for retards like Joe, I am in the military. My ENTIRE family is military, its pathetic people like you that make things hard for us, we get paid very little, yet we still serve, for you. The people. Black, white, Asian, gay, straight, ALL people of diversity. I personally don't give a god damn about you. I don't know you, and I hope I never do.

You are all welcome, because I, like the rest of my brothers and sisters, risk my life so YOU have YOUR freedom. And calling the men and women who serve rednecks? You don't even know us.

And Major Tanzer, I sir will render a proper salute, but not by my own choice, but because it is the code that we follow. I took the oath and I will live by it until my time in this great nation's armed services is up. I'm guessing that "Semper Fidelis" is not in your vocabulary, is it sir?

Petty Officer 3rd Class Daniel P. Norton. United States Navy

Thank you Petty Officer Daniel Norton for your service to our country. While there are some that will try to do whatever they can to lessen your contribution, we will not as many of us are veterans and we know the real meaning and value and understand the privilege that it is to serve in the armed forces of the United States of America.


28 February 2007

Emily C. wrote:

My name is Emily, and I personally feel as if this website needs some corrections.  Of course, this will be my own opinion, and not of any political group of any sort, and please do not try to make me look like i am for someone else's political agenda, only my own.

We will address your opinions as your own.

First off, in your "hate mail" someone wrote in about how America allows freedom of speech, and you wrote in your commentary that they are not supporting the freedom and justice America was founded on. Well, you see I have a issue with that saying, The United States of America, was able to become what it has become, because when the early settlers came to the east coast and started to move west, they felt as if they had to murder every single native person already living in what we now call U.S.A.

You are making an assumption that is incorrect. You assume that all settlers had those feelings. We would argue that most, if not all, wanted nothing more than to live their lives in peace.

you see, i usually never bring this up when in a discussion of American politics, but as you wrote and brought up the discussion of "democracy and freedom" that America was founded on, it just must of slip your mind, that they also BRUTALLY murdered millions and millions of PEOPLE. not animals, not birds but HUMAN BEINGS. hahaha, ok now how you going to turn that around and try to make it look like THAT was justified?

You made a statement that America brutally killed millions and millions of people. There were not that many people in this country then. If you studied history, you will see that most were not killed by bullets, but by disease and that left a huge void in the land that was eventually filled. But, who cares if you exaggerate the facts to fit your own agenda. That is a lot like Congressman Owen Majors and the statement he made about the slave trade saying that 250 million slaves that were thrown overboard during the Atlantic crossing from Africa to America. The fact is it did not happen. It is a lie.

But go ahead and say what is really on your mind.

In every single way, it was not justified, except pure, human greed. Now when i think of that, I am grateful that Mexicans are not like the "great Europeans" that founded this country, because I would be dead.

You must be forgetting about the Conquistadors. Perhaps a closer examination of history is in order.

The Spanish explorer Hernan Cortes who defeated the Aztecs and conquered Mexico (1485-1547). He and his men killed everything and everyone that they came across. Orellana and his search for El Dorado was no peace mission. He was looking for gold and willing to kill the natives to get it.

Cabeza de Vaca and his arrival to the new world is another good example. The Spanish did not consider the Indians to be human.

Francisco Pizarro hoped to find riches in South America. He ransomed the life of a king for a room full of gold and silver.

There is a reason that most of South America is mostly Spanish (with the exception of Brazil, Guyana, Surinam, and French Guyana) and not Inca. The Spanish were the settlers of Mexico and the rest of Latin America. All of that history must have slipped your mind.

On that topic, I must also include that original Mexicans(Since Mexico did have control of most of western america) lived in what now is California, and Arizona and many other states, and were murdered along with other NATIVE americans, you see, america never has to live up to this disgusting deed and dirt cheap land, because there are BARELY anyone living that is actually pure native, and the very few remaining true Americans left are only here, because disgusting Men raped the women at the villages.

Again, let us remind you that the Mexicans are nothing more than imports from Spain that did the very things you claim that America has done. But if you think that California and the other southwestern states should be given to Mexico, why don't you just say so. There is a reason that Mexicans want to come to the United States. That reason is that the United States is not Mexico. The United States is a better country with a better economy. We made it that way. And in typical Liberal fashion, now that it is worth something, and made so by others, you want to give it away.

You see whats happening here? You have turned United State's disgusting deed and thrown it away and just said that it was founded on "JUSTICE AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH".

We have done nothing of the kind.

And sorry but these stupid little political games are a waste of time, we need to shut the hell up and pay attention to the GENOCIDE happening right before your eyes, please, please, don't let genocide happen AGAIN AND AGAIN, why can't we help the people of DARFUR?

You seem to be rambling on and on without any goal of where you are taking this idea. What are you talking about?

they have done NOTHING! except live, and try to keep living and the Sudanese government has killed hundred of thousands of people, but get this, they don't only brutally murder, men, and children, but the women, they "ONLY GET RAPED!"

Ask yourself this, what was the motivating factor of this violence? What form of government that would allow this to happen to its citizens? If America sent troops into Sudan, you would be the first to accuse our troops of being Occupation Troops!

This makes me cry, rape as a weapon of war? ANd what disgust me most, is that this has happened before, men came to america, killed women and children who lived here, gave them diseases and "just raped the women".

You certainly have a real agenda going on here. Did women come to America too? It seems like they would have had to. If not, the men would not have been killing all the women in sight. They would have started presenting themselves in a manner to attract a wife and start a family. You seem to be full of hatred. Were the women that came over to America from Europe guilty of the killing "women and children who lived here" too. It actually sounds like you are accusing Europeans (men and women) of the mass killing in America.

This is an act of which all humans with a heart, must come out, whether a Democrat or Republican or Marxist, or very right-winged, how can you watch genocide happen?

You will find that genocide happens with Left-Wing agendas. Marxist and Socialist based governments are usually the culprits, but we notice that you do not speak ill of them. We have also taken note that you seem to harbor a vile hatred of White American Men. You really sound as if you hate men with a passion.

and speak of silly little things like if 9/11 was this or that, sorry but that was only 2,000 or so people, this is millions.
Call me what ever you want, just remember my name.

You have thrown all American men into this category and shame on you for that. It is men that would come to your rescue if someone was attacking you. But would you come to a man's rescue if it were needed?

Your e-mail seems so full of hate and fear of people that have no desire to harm you.


We had a reply from another reader concerning above e-mail from Emily C.

09 March 2007

Vicki wrote:

In response to Miss Emily C.

The response that you put forth to this web site is an embarrassment to women of all time, Let alone all of mankind.

You first off need to go back to school, and take American History followed by Government Politics, and then try to take an IQ test and really see where you are.

Please do us all a favor and get your facts straight for one before answering anymore commentaries, and if you ever decide to venture out in the real world please do not speak in public for fear that you would put us all to shame with your narrow misinformed thoughts.

Written by a True and Proud American,


Well said Vicki. Anyone who reads this letter can see the difference between the intellectual attributes of Emily C. and Vicki. Each clearly represents an attitude that is the defining quality of their core beliefs.


21 February 2007

Jeff wrote:

Your site is one of the most vile and pathetic machinations of the human mind. The only traitors are yourselves. You have demeaned any semblence of freedom with  insanity, especially your call for violence.

Where have we called for violence? At no point on this website have we called for the death of anyone. The same cannot be said for many on this website. We have quoted many of the Left-Wing calling for the death of people including the death of their children.

whether you agree with these people or not. Your view of the world is very narrow minded and limited.

Our view of the world is based on facts. Supporting American troops is of great importance. You would think that an officer in the Air Force would see that. It is sad to see you siding with CodePINK.

You know nothing of the Zionist Israeli situation, although you speak with great authority. Lets hope when the fascists are run out of washington your kind will be run out too.

J Tanzer, ***** Mass. Maj.AF (ret)

You assume much of what you do not know. It is funny how you call us fascists, what with our very narrow minded and limited view of the world, yet you side with Cindy Sheehan, CodePINK, and their allies that include Nazi and other White Supremacists groups that celebrate and worship the writings of Mein Kampf. Nazis are generally regarded as fascists.

Look at who is allied with Cindy Sheehan and CodePINK? Here are some of the many supporters. Again, note of the level of anti-American doctrine and anti-Semitism of these groups.

And we would also love to hear your views concerning the Zionist Israeli situation, so please, enlighten us. Give us the benefit of your education and vast world experience.


20 February 2007

joe wrote:

I like how you criticize people for saying things you don't agree with, but you apparently don't feel the need to posit exactly what's wrong with their statements. Personally, other than some of the extreme PETA stuff (which shouldn't be included with "liberals" anyway since they are apolitical), I generally agree with everything you seem to hate.

We have the right to express our opinion just as anyone else does. PeTA is not so apolitical. They absolutely have a political agenda. PeTA is indeed a Left-Wing extremist group and we have clearly illustrated this fact.

Some examples:

"Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?! The United States of America! " I think it's very reasonable and arguably true that the US is indeed the "most violent nation." Of course it depends on what you mean by "most violent":

You would probably have to ask Jay Bennish to elaborate. It seems clear to us that he is trying to be nothing but anti-American and anti-establishment, but that is only our opinion.

Most attacks on foreign countries: The US, by far. The US has fomented violence around the world almost non-stop for the last century, usually to protect the interests of rich Americans.

So you think that we should not have helped Kuwait, South Korea, Philippines, Australia and the people of the South Pacific, Germany, France, Poland, Austria, and the rest of Europe. It sounds like you are being sucked in by the rhetoric of Left-Wing extremists.

Much like the rest of Liberalism, you seem to be obsessed with class warfare. You believe that the rich are out to get everyone else. Make no mistake, there is no such thing as a classless society.

Military: We have the largest military spending, by a large margin.

Yes we do. And you consider this to be a bad thing? Remember, it was the American military that liberated Europe in World War II. It was the American military that was the backbone that conquered Communism that led to the fall of the USSR and their satellite puppet countries.

Crime: We have the most violent crimes of any industrialized nation, by a large margin.

Ask yourself why. The destruction of the family unit is a good place to start. It is the Left-Wing that is responsible for that. The failure of the education system is another piece of the puzzle to consider. The Left-Wing has had control of education for the last 50 years and this is the result. Take a look at 50 Years of Progress in Education and decide for yourself.

Punishment: Crime: We have the most people in prison, per capita, by a large margin.

Again, take a look at the destruction of the family unit. They have also moved into the arena of avoiding and/or excusing personal responsibility.

I'm sure an argument could be made that by some quantifications we are not the most violent nation but if you generalize all kinds of violence - cultural, criminal, military, violence against women, domestic violence, violence against "nature," I'm pretty sure the US would be the clear leader.

This sounds like talking points from the "I Hate America" textbook. You have totally ignored the hundreds of millions of people that have been freed by America. There is a reason that people around the world flock to this country and it is because of the freedom and liberty that this country is known for around the world.

Anyway I'm tired of writing this email since you probably won't understand it, you certainly won't agree with it, you probably won't put  it on your website, and if you did the type of people that your website appeals to would certainly not stop and think about the point I'm making either because they are stupid jesus-freak rednecks, or because you edited the email to the point where it's incomprehensible.

Have a great day


You do not seem to understand anything about us, you certainly do not understand the people that agree with this website, and you are certainly rude in your assumptions about people that you do not know and have no understanding of. Calling people "stupid Jesus-freak rednecks" pretty much sums up the truth behind your core beliefs.

And for the record, we have printed your e-mail in full without any edits just as we do with any e-mail we get. We have responded to your e-mail on a point-by-point basis.


03 February 2007

Lilu wrote:

I don't even know where to start, but you have everything wrong about one of your cases. First of all Peter Young was caught during an act of freeing the minks, not at starbucks across the country.

Actually, we are right. Peter Young was caught while shop lifting CDs in a Starbucks as we reported. He was found guilty of crimes committed in Wisconsin, but he was caught in the Starbucks stealing CDs.

He was in Wiscounsin in his car, which you said in your article he doesn't own a vehicle but is just a slum-bag.

We never said anything of the kind. You are the one that referred to him as a "Slum-bag", whatever that is. But we did spell Wisconsin properly.

He owned a red geo before the local authorities violated his fourth amendment rights and seized the car.

That should have been to Peter Young's advantage. That would make the evidence inadmissible in court. The information we have says that Allison Porter was the owner of the Geo in question. As to whether or not Peter Young ever owned a Geo is not relevant.

Another thing, about how you commented about how he's just another spoiled teenager, well if he was then why would his father fight so hard during all the trials and when he's in prison if this is just another phase of a brat?

You don't seem to understand the meaning of "spoiled". Once again, he relies on his parents to get him out of trouble because of his irresponsible actions and behavior. And we never did call him a teenager, you did.

Are you saying that Peter Young did not do what he was accused of doing?

I don't now about your other articles, but maybe you should first get credibility and actual sources to base your articles off of and I don't mind your opinions as long as they're not bullsh*t like how your articles are.

We are accurate with our information. If you refuse to believe the truth, there is not much we can do.

From the Animal Crackers website:

Peter Daniel Young, an animal rights activist who has been a fugitive since 1997 for alleged crimes committed in Wisconsin, was arrested in San Jose while allegedly shoplifting Monday night. The San Francisco office of the FBI confirmed Wednesday that Young is in FBI custody. Two San Jose police officers spotted Young as he allegedly tried to steal CDs off a shelf at a Starbucks coffee shop at Alameda and West Julian. "He tried to give them a fake ID," said FBI spokesperson LaRae Quy. "When they fingerprinted him, they realized he was wanted by the FBI." In October 1997, three Wisconsin fur farms were raided and mink were released. In 1998, a federal grand jury indicted Young and another man, Justin Samuel, for Hobbs Act violations and two counts of Animal Enterprise Terrorism. Samuel was arrested in Belgium and extradited to the United States, while Young's whereabouts had been unknown.

Perhaps you should give the San Francisco office of the FBI a call and you can enlighten them on the facts of the case.


02 February 2007

Steve Murray wrote:

So, I came across your website by accident, and I must say that your website fails to scare me.

We are not trying to scare you or anyone else. Where did you get that impression? This website is a collection of accurate and true information that you can do with as you see fit.

I don't feel threatened by those people.

This could be due to several reasons that include but are not limited to the following:

  • You are not one of their targets

  • These people are afraid of you

  • You do not care about the people that are their targets

  • You are indifferent to people being harmed

  • You support the people committing the terrorist actions cited on this website

  • You are one of the people committing the terrorist actions cited on this website

Please understand that we are not accusing you of anything unlawful. Based on that last statement, either you do not see that these people are a threat to others or you do not care.

This is supposed to be "land of the free, home of the brave", but now, it has just turned into a bunch of fearful paranoid people running around thinking that anyone and possibly everyone is a terrorist.

Your statement assumes that the information we have on this website is false. Such is not the case. The information contained here is accurate and true. It could be that you do not want to see the truth of the actions of the Earth Liberation Front and other eco-terrorist organizations. Maybe you do not see the danger that is Communism/Marxism/Socialism. Perhaps you do not see that supporting Islamic terrorists is a threat to American soldiers and civilians alike. You are free not to. You have not disputed a single fact presented on this website.

What is the purpose of your website?

This is clearly documented in the first sentence on the Mission Statement page. The purpose of this website is to expose all of the violent speech and the violent actions of these so-called "Non-Violent" and "Peaceful" groups. This website is also a list and record of people that have betrayed and endangered America by their seditious and treasonous activities. And we consider terrorist actions against America, its citizens, and the support of terrorists to be of a treasonous nature.


16 January 2007

Sherry Seese wrote:

I came across your website purely by accident; but found it very interesting.  I decided to write because I did not find any hate mail that was sent by reasonable people, nor did I find any good mail. Don't you print those?

What you read is very typical of what we receive and you are right - most of the people that write to us do not seem to be very reasonable at all. That appears to be some of their charm. Some of the mail we get is so full of profanity that it is literally unprintable. Printing comments from those that agree with us is not nearly as interesting as those that hate us, thus the term "Hate Mail". We will complement you on your e-mail. With one exception, it was free from grammatical errors and misspellings and that is very rare.

I found your website to be Conservative Far Right Extremist. You sound like my son. I am retired military an he is active military. I do not know how or why he and you believe as you do, but it is troubling. I read everything in your website and could not find anything that resembled true facts or reason.

What did you see that was inaccurate or incorrect?

You sound bitter and angry.

If you read the "Hate Mail" you will see the people that are bitter and angry. We have been polite and direct in responding to whatever questions are asked. Where did you see any bitterness or anger in our replies?

I sincerely doubt that you are an official website that exposes terrorism or extremism.  Therefore, you do nothing to advance the fight against true extremism.

What do you mean "an official website"? We were unaware of any official sanctioning body that has an approval process? All we do is to print what others have said and then we offer our own comments. Again, what have we stated on this website that is not factual?


12 January 2007

Pollo Tllz wrote:

Well... I was just curious about your link called hate mail, and just couldn't hold my curiosity, and read some of the critics. You say that the USA is putting democracy in Iraq,

That is what is happening in Iraq. Remember the elections and the purple fingers.

How can the US government talk about democracy, when they supported, dictators such as, Pinochet, Somoza, Trujillo, Batista, and another interminable list of dictators and puppet governments.

They are leaders of sovereign nations that we wish to get along and have civil relations. Would you suggest that we go to war with these countries and/or try and depose their governments? What do you think should be done?

How can you talk about democracy when, civilians from Iraq or Afghanistan, not mentioning the victims from other countries years before this invasion.

What? Sorry, but we do not understand the idea that you are trying to convey with that statement.

How cant you talk abut democracy and "peace, when blood  is being spilled thanks to US soldiers.

You say that as though U.S. soldiers are looking to kill as many civilians as possible. You want to believe that American soldiers are blood thirsty barbarians seeking to rape, pillage, and burn every village they come across. Nothing could be further from the truth and you know it, you just do not want to believe it. How can you talk about peace when blood is being spilled at extreme rates by insurgents backed by al-Qaeda, Iran, and peace activist groups that are targeting and killing Iraqi civilians as fast as they can?

How can you talk about democracy, how are you to categorize yourselves as democratic?

This entire line of questioning shows that you have no idea what led up to the current situation in Iraq. Let's see what you have overlooked:

1. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990

2. The coalition led by the United States to remove Hussein from Kuwait

3. The ceasefire agreed upon by Saddam Hussein in 1991

4. Removal of the weapons inspectors in the late 1990s

5. The attack on the United States on September 11, 2001

6. The clear violations of 17 UN resolutions that were conditions of the ceasefire

7. 14+ months of waiting and voting in Congress for Hussein to comply with the conditions of the ceasefire of 1991 before the start of Gulf War II

You have overlooked a lot of relevant facts. You may want to take a look at "When WWIII Started" to gain a clearer understanding on the subject.

since when democracy has been defines as invading and killing?

You mean like the invasion of Europe to remove Nazi Germany from Europe.

in my opinion., the united states is not democratic or free.

You did not say where you hold citizenship. With what country are you making that comparison? What country offers more freedom and opportunity for a person to succeed? We noticed that you failed to capitalize "United States. Was this done out of disrespect or was there another reason?

Freedom has no value if violence is the price, and how is the united states to put orden and decide the faith of foreign countries?

So fighting the Nazis in WWII was not worth the price of freedom.

"The price of freedom is great... It is never given freely and it is forever being paid."

you call this thing hate mail when you don't even know how to love. You can talk all you want but actions mean more than just words.

Here you go trying to make this about "feelings". We give you facts on this website and all you can do is to respond with talk about "feelings". This is just more proof that you are thinking "Emotionally" rather than "Intellectually".

The Soldiers and Marines on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are putting everything on the line to remove the murderous insurgents that routinely target civilians. These are the actions that get the job done. What have you done? Marching and protesting with your anti-American rhetoric just makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution.

You seem to forget what the enemies that we are fighting are doing. Perhaps you have heard of the suicide bombers targeting civilians. American troops are not doing that. What they are doing is hunting out the people that commit these acts of terrorism. Of course, according to you this has no value to the advancement of peace and freedom.


12 January 2007

o L l i e RamOne wrote:

HAHAHAHAHA ! We want to thank you for making us laugh that much with your "Anti-american, communist, terrorist and dangeours things". We really think that many of that phrases have great coherence and logic.

"Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors."

So, the ugly truth rears its ugly head. You are in favor of killing American soldiers. That pretty much states your position; so much for peace being your goal. All you want is for harm to come to American troops. You just said it. You want NCOs and officers to die to satisfy a selfish attitude.

One of the things that make us laugh is the way you spell "dangeours".

For example, how can you call these people(codepink, ALF,etc) terrorists when lots of soldiers go to Iraq to kill a great number of innocent people just to find out a way to get oil and enrich the US.

It is easy to call CodePINK what they are. They support terrorism. They do not support the war on terrorism. Innocent people have died in every war in history. When American soldiers kill innocent people, it is not intentional. You probably do not believe that after all you have the mentality that our soldiers deserve to die. When terrorist kill with suicide bombers, it is intentional. When America was attacked on September 11th, the terrorists wanted to kill innocent people. You probably refer to them as "little Eichmanns" like Ward Churchill. Our soldiers do not appreciate that attitude and you know that to be true. That is why you have that attitude so you can be as destructive as you can to their mission.

I think this phrase is correct because real freedom is going to happen when the soliders open their eyes and shot the one who brain-washed them, their superiors, that ones who goes to high schools and invite you to join the army, to be proud to kill civils in the name of your country.

And here you are wishing the death of soldiers. It is a proud and noble thing to volunteer to defend your country. This seems to be a concept that you refuse to acknowledge or understand. And nothing is asked of you. We do not have a draft. We have a totally volunteer military. Nobody is asking you to lift a finger to help maintain the freedom in this country that is the envy of the world. It seems clear that you certainly could not be relied upon to do the job that many volunteer to do. All you have to do is to live under freedom that others provide for you.

If you come back with some statement that we do not have the freedoms that we claim to have, all you have to do is to move to any other country of your choosing where there are more freedoms than there is in the America.

How can you call selfish or self-centered persons the one who fights for others life even knowing that they can loose their own liberty? Isn't that ironic?

Who are you speaking of here - The American soldiers that place their lives on the line every day? The soldier that re-enlists because they see the importance of what they do in spite that there are those like CodePINK and you that refer to them "killers" while supporting the very terrorists that are killing them? Who are you speaking of? It cannot be the protester that is arrested and given a $50 fine and maybe a night in jail for breaking the law or starting a riot. But maybe that is who you are talking about. The people busy marching that have the Right to Assemble and the Right of Free Speech to defame those that sacrifice so much to ensure that...

they have the Right to Assemble and the Right of Free Speech to defame those that sacrifice so much to ensure that...

they have the Right to Assemble and the Right of Free Speech to defame those that sacrifice so much to ensure that...

they have the Right to Assemble and the Right of Free Speech to defame those that sacrifice so much to ensure that...

It is easy to see who the "Protectors of Freedom" are and who they are not.

Is it posible that there are people who spent hours and hours of their time creating websites to criticize animal defenders or people who defends others life?

It is possible that the people that will burn down your property because you do not agree with them are dangerous criminals. And if you support them, then are part of the problem and not the solution. We just want to give them the deserved credit that they earned by their actions. This website has done nothing but report their actions and given our comments on those actions. And we noticed that you have not disputed a single fact presented here.

How can you invite us to "Make a difference" if the only thing you do is to support war and agree with Bush & crew's words and actions?

And giving support to the Soldiers and Marines that have volunteered to do a job that you cannot be counted on to do. It seems that you do not have a clear understanding of the history that got us to this point. This has been addressed several times on the "Hate Mail" page section of the website. This war in Iraq could have been avoided and Saddam Hussein would still be in power killing and torturing his own people with impunity if he only abided by the conditions of the ceasefire agreement from Gulf War I in 1991. But do not let us confuse your argument with a bunch of relevant facts.

Making a difference in history means to change what is established, to try to change what is wrong; not to be another sheep of the goverment.

Good point. So you think that we should have let Saddam Hussein stay in power. Well, we did. We gave him the chance and he did not want to follow the conditions of the ceasefire from Gulf War I. We have addressed this throughout the website.

hahahaha! really funny, thank you. So, you are against humanity crimes?

Remember the invasion of Kuwait. America is not trying to conquer other countries. If we wanted to, we could. If we wanted the oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait, we could have done so in a couple of weeks back in 1991. Today, we could probably do so in a long weekend. But we have no intention of doing so. Yet you still adhere to that argument that all we want is their oil and that is the only reason that we are there. The problem with your argument is we have not taken control of the oil fields. Again, do not let us confuse your argument with a bunch of facts.

You should be against your goverment, your system and your president. Arent humanity crimes all the invasions of the US army in foreign countries?

No, humanity crimes are not the invasions of the U.S. Army in foreign countries. But it is no surprise that you see history in that light. You are forgetting about WWII. Here is the statement that you support the Nazis in WWII. You are clear that you are against the removal of Hitler and the destruction of the Nazi machine. You have made clear that you support Hitler's invasion of Europe and would do nothing to stand against it. This is why you cannot be relied upon to do what is necessary to prevent crimes against humanity!

In Korea, you probably would have allowed the Communists total access and control of South Korea. A lot of South Koreans might argue the point with you. Are you forgetting about all of the people we have freed throughout the world? But you consider that to be "humanity crimes". You should consider opening your mind. You don't see the danger of the people that you seem to support. We support our President and our troops. It is easy to see that you don't, in fact you seem to support those that wish to support and destroy us. Thanks, but we do not need that kind of help.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or group against people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reasons.

So lets analyze this. The definition of terrorism is unlawful (it could be legal in the US, but not in other countries even not for the UN) use of force or violence by a person or group of people or property with the intent of intimidation or coercion often for ideological or political reason (Isn't that what the us army is doing in the Middle East?, How can you call environmentalists and vegans terrorists while having that president?)

Actually, it is not. We are helping establish Democracy in Iraq. We are providing assistance to the democratically elected government of Iraq until they can protect themselves against the forces of countries like Iran. You probably do not see that Iran is a danger. It would seem that you might even offer support to Iran to help destroy the government that the Iraqi people elected. It is doubtful that the Iraqi people appreciate this contribution to their effort.

Please feel free to answer me.

And stop calling America to the US, because it is not. America is the entire continent from Groelandia to Argentina. We think that you maybe part of the goverment or other right-wing associations, and if we are wrong, we think that you should open a little bit your mind, because you're being sucked by the system. Sincerely, Hazel & Ollie

Hazel and Ollie, this may be news to you, but the world considers America to be the United States and the United States to be America. If you ask anyone in the world where "America" is, they can show you. And they will point to the United States of America on a map.

You seem to be confusing Greenland, North America, and South America. They actually have separate names. There are many that would be surprised to hear Greenland referred to as America, but you can call it whatever you wish.


04 January 2007

gh vh wrote:

I am an Arab youth from Morocco; am what your women against Bush's war on the Arab world, and what delights me more harm courage is the courage of the women stronger than men in the world ,

thank you

It sounds like you believe what those that have an agenda against America are telling you. If you remember correctly, it was the United States that came to the aid of Kuwait. We have been allies with Saudi Arabia to the extent that we have sold Saudi Arabia some of our finest military weapons. You do not give weapons to people that are considered your enemies. In spite of the propaganda that has been advanced against America and President Bush, America is not at war with the Arab world. However, we do seem to be at war with Radical Islam. It did not start with the attack on September 11; it peaked with the attack on September 11. Read the editorial When World War III Started. While nations often disagree with on small points, this does not lead to war. In America, war requires a much more drastic event... such as the attack on 9-11.

If America was at war on the Arab world in general, we would have stopped immigration from all Arab countries. This did not happen. We would be carpet bombing cities and laying to waste all life instead of trying to save the general population and only engaging insurgents that are killing Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. It is much easier to kill everyone rather than to be selective and precise with targets. If America was really trying to capture the vast riches of the oil fields throughout the Arab world, we could have done it in five weeks instead of the five years that we have been trying to save the Arab population from insurgents that are coming in from other Islamic countries with their car bombs and suicide bombers who only want to harm civilians. The people that have informed you of what you know probably did not relate to you these facts.

What did you think about the conviction and execution of Saddam Hussein? Did you believe that it was a just outcome?

And concerning your comment that women are stronger than men, it sounds like you believe that women have more power than men. Well... you are right. This has always been the case. Women have always gotten men to do things that they would have never done on their own. It is no secret that women civilize men, it is just that some women refuse to accept that fact that women wield more power than men. Women have always the power to control men... and they can do it without men recognizing that is what is happening.


E-mails from gh vh
2 of 2

05 January 2007

gh vh wrote:

thank you for re-message
i have more remarque :
1 : attaque 9/11 In my view that the United States was playing an active role in the attacks, as they have contributed to the financing of those groups in Afghanistan directly during the cold war against Russia addition to the double-standard policy that supports Israel against the Arabs

Your view is incorrect. The United States did not play an active role in the 9/11 attack. We were living in peace with the rest of the world, dealing with day-to-day issues as was every other country on this planet. We were not at war with anyone, nor were we looking to be at war with anyone. The world of Islam attacked America again. This was not the first time. Again, we will refer you to the article When World War III Started so you can see how America has been attacked by Islamic countries.

2 : power the usa  If they want good for the Arabs fought them right to fill Proof of this war could have been billions of use in establishing and building destruction and killings are from both sides

It sounds like something was lost in the translation. It sounds like you want America to give billions of dollars to Arab countries. We already do!!! We buy oil. Remember, it was the Western world that found the oil in the Arab countries. Without the Western world discovering oil throughout the Middle East, all of these countries would be extremely impoverished.

3 :I want to ask you if the occupation of the United States of America why you are you going to do? Your answer will be the answer to the resistance by Iraq and the Islamists who said their (terrorism), America went to war in Iraq when the alliance, as well as the Iraqi resistance is Islamic alliance also against the occupation

There is the problem. You do not have a clear understanding of history and current events.

If you remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United States assembled a coalition of forces to free Kuwait from Iraqi Occupation. Once the ground war started, Iraqi conscripts (Iraqi soldiers force into the military) were surrendering as fast as they could. They did not want to fight for Saddam Hussein. They hoped that the coalition led by America would oust Saddam Hussein. A ceasefire was agreed upon with Saddam Hussein that would keep him in power but with certain conditions. These conditions included the right of weapons inspectors to have full access to ensure that the dismantling of his "War Machine" was completed in accordance with the ceasefire agreement. There were 17 UN resolutions that were broken by Saddam Hussein that were conditions of the ceasefire. That is why we had to go back into Iraq. If Saddam Hussein had not broken the conditions of the ceasefire, he would still be alive, in power, and free to continue killing of his own people without any interference from any other country.

America is not trying to occupy any country. We will be leaving upon request of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. America is helping the new government get established in hopes of preventing civil war. This is no easy task.

4 :Madam, you are crying to your children in Iraq and Afghanistan, what if the Iraqi mother being raped and killed her or not those of your democracy,

We would be happy to respond to this statement, but the meaning was lost.

5 : Do you think that the execution of Saddam has achieved democracy in Iraq; contrary, in my view, because Saddam is the hero in the eyes of Iraq and the world As hangeded, is a brave and open the eyes .......

The new Iraqi government gave Hussein a trial, found him guilty, and executed him. This is the government that was elected by the Iraqis. Democracy has already been achieved in Iraq. For the first time in 10,000 years, there were free elections in Iraq. Remember the pictures of the proud men and women showing their purple ink stained fingers showing the proof that they had voted for their leaders. Hussein was a hero only to a few Iraqis. He governed by force. He was not loved by his people. The celebrations of Iraqis around the world upon hearing of his execution are proof.

Car bombs : who is the beneficiary?

No one is. It is a destructive but useless act. That is why it needs to be stopped. America is helping the Iraqi government to stop the terrorists that use car bombs as a means to instill fear into others.

attaques 9/11 : who is the beneficiary?

As you can see, no one was the beneficiary. The Taliban was in control in Afghanistan along with al-Qaeda, their honored guest. They are no longer in control. They did not benefit. Much of the al-Qaeda leadership has been eliminated... and rightly so. That 9/11 attack was not the first attack on America.

i dont know what do you mean brave women ?

You are the one that mentioned the "courage of women". Women have the power to control men. This is no secret. It has gone since the beginning of civilization.

Why is the United States of America to interfere in Arab affairs Is the guardian of the people ?

Let us remind you about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Was America wrong to interfere then? Is America wrong to sell arms to Saudi Arabia? America has sold arms to Iraq and Iran in the past. All of these things interfere with Arab affairs.

doubl-standard : iserael has nuclear weapons , The United States of America does not want to speak  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??

Jewish Occupation!

Israel does have nuclear weapons. And they are used to protect Israel against an Arab attack. Israel does not want to attack any country to expand their land holdings. However, the Arab countries have pledged to kill Israel. As you can see, Israel is greatly outnumbered. Ask yourself this question, "Why is it that it is acceptable for Jews to live under Arab rule (with no freedom of religion) in one of the smallest countries in the world, but it is not acceptable for Arabs to live under Israeli rule (with freedom of religion)?"

Take a look at the editorials "HAMAS Charter of 1988", "The Truth About the Palestinian People", and "Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism". There is no double standard. Israel is a sovereign nation as is Kuwait. Both have a right to exist and defend themselves from attack. Remember, Iraq's trouble stems directly from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 02 August 1990.

How many times has Israel attacked without provocation? The answer... NONE. How many times have Arab countries, HAMAS, the PLO, or Hezbollah attacked Israel without provocation? Let's see... 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 2006. This is not counting the constant and continuous attacks and the threat of genocide from the entire Arab world. Again, take a look at the map above that shows how Arab countries outnumber Israel.

The problem is that the Arab countries are so full of hatred toward Israel that they only want to kill them [Israel]. They have no desire to live in peace with Israel.


Back to the Top

Total Website Count

©Copyright 2005 - 2016