How do we live with ourselves? What are you talking about? We oppose everything you just mentioned. That is the very purpose of this website. We stand against Marxism, Socialism, and Terrorism, which, if you know anything about history, covers everything you just mentioned. Did you miss that aspect of this website? Somehow, you missed the Home Page and the very first paragraph of the Mission Statement, the second page of this website. Perhaps you should read these two pages again.
Did you even take the time to read this website before you wrote you scathing e-mail questioning how we can live with ourselves?
It is obvious that you have no idea or understanding what this website contains yet feels compelled and qualified to comment on the content.
E-mails like this make up about 30% of the e-mails we receive. They make no sense because it is clear that the author has no idea what this website is. When you read this e-mail, it appears that the author is saying we support these terrorist actions and genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth. A fact that is easy to see if you actually read the website.
It is the Left-Wing that supports everything you mentioned in your e-mail. The terrorism from the Animal Rights Movement is a product of the Left-Wing Liberal agenda.
Terrorism from Islamic terrorists are tolerated by the Liberal mind with excuses that we deserved the attacks but all efforts to combat this terrorism are condemned by the Left-Wing groups.
Marxist ideals are supported by the Left-Wing - the same ideals that require more and more dependency on government entitlement programs and less and less Freedom, Independence, and Liberty, which has been the foundation for the greatness of America since 1776. Just look at the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The Communists and Socialists reign supreme.
If we are to assume the 6 million people you refer to were the Jews killed by the Nazis, allow us to educate us more. It was at a minimum of 6 million Jews that were murdered by the Nazis. If you actually studied history, you would see the number of people that died due to the Nazis was more like 75 - 100 million people. You conveniently left out the Russians, French, British, Americans, and the other many countries around the world that suffered at the hands of the Nazi - National Socialist Movement. Notice the word "Socialist" for that philosophy is at the very core of the movement that caused all the death, destruction, and suffering. And let us not forget the German people that suffered and died at the hands of the National Socialist Movement.
This website exists to record events so as to educate people. We want people to remember what happens when Freedom, Liberty, and Independence are missing components in agendas such as Communist, Marxist, and Socialist ideals. That is why we rail against these ideals.
There is really only one question remaining to ask. Now that we know how you despise us for our beliefs and how we stand against Terrorism, Marxism, and the anti-Capitalist and anti-American beliefs of the Left-Wing, how do you live with yourself?
--TOP--
E-mails from Mitch
2 of 2
12 May 2012
Mitch wrote:
Please spend a few months in the Netherlands-A perfect Society.
That is an interesting claim. Are you living there now or are you still in America? Have you surrendered your American Citizenship for a perfect life in the Netherlands? If not, why not. Everyone in the Netherlands speaks English. It is a mandatory language taught in all schools in the Netherlands.
Left-Wing Liberal agenda for trying to protect animals??? How can you compare Social viewpoints with saving lives of ANY spices, including ours.
It is the Left-Wing that makes up pretty much the entire Animal Rights Movement. You are maintaining the viewpoint of all of the Animal Rights Activists whereby eating meat is considered murder if a human eats meat, but not if another animal does the same. The Animal Rights Movement keeps saying that humans are part of nature, and then they immediately say that eating meat is wrong even though it has been part of nature for hundreds of thousands of years.
You people must get a big donation from the Koch brothers and the other hate mongers.
We do not take any donations from anyone. We do not take any donations from the members of the Animal Rights Movement that have no problem with exercising their hatred toward others as is seen by their actions of destruction and criminal activity.
I don't make a million a year but I work hard to make a living.
How much harder is it when so much of your money is taken from you and given to others that did not earn it?
The republicans and Conservative spook in the spy freaks would have me killed for wanting people to have health care and wanting all humans and other animals to have rights. Animal abusers feel the same way about killing people. Read up on it. I would not heard a fly. A republican conservative is a version of a "Christian Taliban" You insult me because I believe in different things than you.
We have not insulted you and no one wants to kill you... We love to hear from people like you that have no problem with the name calling i.e. "Christian Taliban". If you really think that Republican Conservatives are this way, it is an uninformed viewpoint you hold. This is not necessarily your fault; you just believe everything the Left-Wing says about Conservatives. Please keep in mind that most of the personnel that serve in the military are Conservatives. This probably enforces your belief of the "Christian Taliban" association with Conservatives. This may be news to you, but not many Liberals have a strong desire to join the military. In fact, you will see that the draft dodgers almost always associate themselves with Left-Wing Liberals.
As to whether or not you would "heard a fly", we will have to take your word on that.
Perfect example. Republican conservatives do not care if anyone lives or dies, if it would make a million dollar corporation an extra dollar they would kill they're own mothers, in the name of "Jesus" of course. A liberal that supports the ALF.
Really… This is what you cite as a "perfect" example. You say that Conservatives do not care if anyone lives or dies. Where did you get this idea? This seems to be a statement that comes from what you want to believe about Conservatives and those that hold a Conservative viewpoint. In this statement, you clearly show your dislike of other people's religious beliefs.
The Conservative agenda against Socialized Medicine is scam where medical care will be heavily rationed by the government that also certifies new medicine. Do you not see a conflict of interest here? No one is trying to stop you from getting healthcare, but why do I have to pay for it? Why do I have to pay for the healthcare that Bill Gates, Barbara Streisand, and other rich people receive? Why should you pay for our healthcare? Why should I have to pay for your healthcare? Why can you not pay for your own healthcare? Why do you feel that you need to have the government to take my hard earned money and give it to everyone else that did not earn it? Do you not understand that this level of dependency is nothing more than slavery to the government? It is a direct attack against Liberty and Self-Reliance. This country is well over 200 years old and somehow, without Socialized Medicine, we have become the greatest country in the world that is the beacon of freedom, not to mention we are the country that liberated the Netherlands of another group people that were severe Animal Rights believers. In case you did not know your history, these people were referred to as the Nazis.
Have a nice day. I do appreciate hearing your viewpoints. I hope to goodness Obama wins. He's not perfect, but anything is better than a God freak Conservative. ALL religion and hatred is vile, vulgar poison. Which seems to be what Conservatives believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I like hearing other peoples opinions. But don't ever call me a terrorist because I disagree with you. Typical Jesus- sicko Conservative. anti-American beliefs of the Left-Wing- very sick statement.
Let us correct you... you are wrong. But what you do not seem to understand is that you actually want to be wrong because this justifies your beliefs. You want to believe that all religion is bad, and therefore, a belief in God is a bad thing because then it would show that some things you want to do cannot be judged. Because this is not a religious website we will not delve into further discussion on religion beyond this brief generalization.
We never referred to you as a terrorist... Not once. Apparently you do not appreciate hearing our viewpoints because you are so quick to label them with the term "Jesus-sicko Conservative".
We would love to have you explain how anything we have stated are anti-American beliefs of the Left-Wing is anything but factual. If you do decide to explain this, please be specific with what is actually written on this website.
--TOP--
E-mails from Declan White
1 of 2
21 April 2012
Declan White wrote:
Dear Men and Women of Target of Opportunity.
Instead of writing a lengthy letter, like many others offended by your website, I am going to ask you one question at a time, so you can focus on answering my questions to the best of your abilities.
My first question is as follows: What makes us humans, better than animals?
Sincerely, Declan White
We should probably ask you the reverse question as you seem to believe something contrary. What makes some animals better than humans and where do you draw the line?
While we offer you our opinion, think about that question.
This e-mail was a little vague, but it appears to be an Animal Rights question so we will treat it as such.
Nature is the driving force of life. Survival instinct is the key motivator that keeps life on this planet. It is not so much that humans are better than animals, but rather it is a question where we draw the line. Animal Rights Activists are quick to assert that whales, dolphins, and whatever other creature they deem is the flavor of the month are just as intelligent as Humans and that these particular animals are being mistreated based on some arbitrary standard of on their own criteria.
"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."
-- David Meyer, July 2006
Animals rely on plants and plants rely on animals to survive. But what is also true is that Animals rely on other animals to live and plants rely on other plants to live. Plants provide food for animals and animals provide food for plants. Here is something that so many Animal Rights Activists do not seem to comprehend. Animals also provide food for other animals, including humans. This is not wrong or unethical. It is natural. It is the cycle of life.
Some animals eat other animals to survive. Their intellectual abilities allow them to figure out how to hunt and kill other animals to survive. Lions do this. Alligators do this. Whales do this. Spiders do this. Humans do this and it is not wrong. Tens of thousands of years ago, mankind learned how to farm and domesticate animals for food and clothing. Man is as successful as a species today because of the intellectual and physical ability to do this. By introducing agriculture into daily life, we are able to support larger populations.
Let us address where we draw the line. As with other species, we draw the line at individual survival. Whales want to live, but they still want to eat Krill, Plankton, small fish, and whatever else is on their diet. If it is acceptable for whales to eat these living creatures, why are humans not allowed to do the same? Are whales better than humans with certain rights we are not allowed to share?
If hunting and killing a whale for food is wrong, where do you draw the line for killing another animal species in order to survive? What about killing a deer? Is that wrong? People eat deer meat for food. What about the whale? If it is wrong to kill a whale, is it wrong to kill a maggot? The maggot only wants to survive and grow into a healthy fly. We can go further and use a flea as an example. Is it wrong to kill a flea for any reason? What about bacteria and viruses? These are living organisms. Do they have as much of a right to live as a human or a whale? Is it wrong to use bleach as a cleaning product because it kills bacteria? It is our vanity that we as humans want a clean place to live. One could make an argument, be it a weak argument, and state that living in a clean disinfected home is not natural because such a place really does not exist in nature.
We can use plants as an example. Why is it that it is acceptable to allow the vegetables in your garden to grow, yet you have absolutely no problem killing the weeds that grow naturally? How are the weeds any less worthy of a life than old growth forests?
So, where do you draw the line at what has a right to live and what does not?
--TOP--
E-mails from Declan White
2 of 2
22 April 2012
Declan White wrote:
Dear Target of Opportunity,
You have many valid points, I will give you that. You are clearly well-read. However, I would like to ask the questions first, and afterwards (do not let me forget), I will answer your's. Please also refrain from all of the additional information, I would like to keep these emails short and sweet.
So if we are no better than animals, what makes it right for us to murder them for food, when we can't murder our weaker neighbors and eat them? Cannibalism is in nature too (birds, bats, frogs, etc.).
Sincerely, Declan White
We never stated that we are no better than animals. You made that assertion with your question. We believe we are better than other animal species just as the bear believes that bears are better than all other species. Just remember, we take care of other animals better than any other species.
People as a whole do not consider themselves "animals". We elevate ourselves above the level of animals because we strive to be better than them. We hold ourselves as humans to a high standard in all aspects of life.
The definition of the word "Murder" is so misused with the Animal Rights Movement. It is not murder to kill an animal for food. It is not murder to kill a mosquito. If you are going to say that it is an act of murder to kill a cow for food, then you have to say it is an act of murder to kill lice because you do not want them in your hair. If you are going to consider that animals have the same rights as humans and hold humans to the this standard, then if you find a jellyfish washed up on the beach, is it an act of murder or at the very least an act of Depraved Indifference not to put it back into the ocean?
The use of the word "Murder" by the Animal Rights Movement is intentional so as to elevate animals to the same plane as humans. Again, we ask, where do you draw the line? What creature or living organism is it not considered murder when it is killed?
The Cheetah does not murder the gazelle. He hunts it and kills it for food so he can survive. A bear does not commit an act of murder when he catches the salmon that he eats while it is still alive. Does the spider murder the fly that is caught in the spider's web or does he kill the fly?
Addressing your reference to cannibalism, if you get into the organic chemistry and molecular makeup of flesh, there is little difference in eating venison and eating human flesh. That being said, there are several reasons that Cannibalism is considered wrong. First, it violates certain taboos that were established and held sacred by civilized society for thousands of years. The burial of a body in a final resting place is of a spiritual nature and belief. This is done out of respect for the person that died and the life that he/she lived.
Secondly, consuming the same creatures that you can reproduce with is fundamentally detrimental to the long-term survival of the species.
--TOP--
19 April 2012
Asim Munshi wrote:
Hi,
I am a typical Muslim teenager(13) and stumbled accross your website whilst browsing the internet.
I shall start by asking you start to stop making these horrible, insensitive remarks. In the west, Islam is portrayed very differently than it is in the east. Like many things, the bad gets exxagerated and the good is hardly ever mentioned. In fact, 99% of Muslims are kind, caring people. 1% are not, yet these are the only people talked about. In the Qu'ran it clearly states, 'God hates the aggressors'. You can interpret that any way you like, but I can't really see how you can interpret that as 'most Muslims are terrorists'.
What have we stated that is incorrect? You many consider the information to be insensitive, but it is factual so what you are actually saying is that the truth is insensitive and should not be viewed because someone might be offended. Do you know who should be offended the most by these acts of Islamic terrorism? The 99% of Muslims that you mentioned do not speak against it. We believe that most Muslims would rather go on with their day-to-day lives rather than commit acts of terrorism. The problem is when the 99% are not offended by the actions that occur every day by Muslims and they fail or refuse speak out as we have done. Non-Muslims cannot clean up the 1% (assuming this is accurate as you claim). It will require the actions of the "99%" of the Muslims.
What you do not seem to see is that the leaders of Islam have a different attitude and philosophy from what you assert is the prevalent attitude of the 99% of all Muslims.
We know you accept the Muslim lifestyle and that is fine with us. You want to love and show tolerance to all other people regardless of all other differences. But is has been clear that this is not the history of Islam.
However, in Islam, if you are put in a life threatening situation, God says you can do everything possible to stop this. Many Muslims, in Palastine, are facing this- they are being unfairly thrown out of their country with nowhere to go. However, no western country will respond, so it must be made clear to everyone what is happening.
As with many people on this planet, you need to reacquaint yourself with United Nations Resolution 181. In 1948 when Israel became a sovereign country, land that was supposed to be given to the Palestinian Arabs was taken by Jordan and Egypt. These two countries, as well as all other Muslim countries, never offered their Muslim brothers a place to go. No Arab country wanted to assimilate these Muslims into their populations. Why is that? That is an easy question. All other Muslims countries saw a better use for these people. They wanted their Muslim brothers to suffer. They wanted them to be pawns in a hate war against the newly formed Israel. If you have the courage to accept the historical truth, you can read "The Truth About the Palestinian People".
As for what you have been taught about Palestine, there is no country of Palestine. There never has been. We know that if Israel is destroyed, it is very likely that Palestine will be the new name of the country, but that has not happened yet.
Here is a question for you. What country in the Middle East allows the freedom of religion and worship for all religions? Here is the answer… Israel. Israel is the only country that allows Muslims to practice Islam, Jews to practice Judaism, Christians to practice Christianity. If Israel is conquered by Muslims, the practice of Freedom of Religion will end at the tip of a sword. Why is it that it is acceptable for Jews to live under a Muslim government with Shariah Law prevails, but not acceptable for Muslims to live under a Jewish government where Democracy prevails?
Have you read the Hamas Charter of 1988?
You are presuming that all Muslims feel that it is their duty to make this clear through violence and killing innocent people. This is where we come back to 1% and 99%. 1% take this to far and believe that this is their duty, 99% are peaceful Muslims. If everyone in the world knew this, maybe people like you would stop stereotyping and realise the truth.
Let us just reiterate again that the "99%" as you have labeled them, have failed to put the pressure on the 1%. We know the "1%" commit the acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. They are taught their actions are right and honorable under the teachings of Islam. They kill in the name of Islam. Whatever happened to the concept that Islam was a religion of peace? It does not seem to be a prevalent concept taught to these people. Why do the "99%" not condemn the individuals rather than excuse their actions by saying these people are not good Muslims? Why do we not see the "99%" of the "Good Muslims" publicly spitting on the photos of the Islam terrorists instead of holding them in high regard? You probably do not remember seeing the Palestinians dancing in the streets and celebrating upon hearing of the news of the September 11 attacks.
Where are the Muslims not protesting against this terrorism committed by Islamic terrorist? The Muslims that we do see protesting are calling for "Death to America", "Death to Israel", and "Death to non-Believers". Every time a Muslim commits a terrorist act, they help to stereotype themselves. Why have you not spoken out against the Muslim terrorists as we have instead of just stereotyping them as a small 1% of Muslims as though it was just some statistical error? Why have you and the other 99% not stood up against the actions of the 18,000+ acts of terrorism committed by Muslims around the world as we have? Remember, you have not disputed any of the facts on this website. You have only referred to these facts as being "insensitive". In fact, it is the shear accuracy of this website that you find most troublesome.
You seem to be so worried about the way the world views Islamic terrorists rather than the terrorism committed by these Muslims in the name of Islam. Other religions do not have such a terrorist problem with 99% of Jews or Christians living as peaceful citizens and 1% committing terrorist acts. The reason is that non-Islamic religions do not have their leaders publicly stating what we have listed in "Quotes from the Muslim World".
I hope this has somewhat helped you understand a little more about Islam.
Asim
We hope our response helps you understand a little more about what Muslims should do to stop Islamic inspired terrorism.
--TOP--
E-mails from Aislinn Sjölander
1 of 2
23 March 2012
Aislinn Sjölander wrote:
Okay, my name is Ashli. I'm your everyday, average teenage white girl. And I just have to say that your website made me want to cry, and punch something (in my teenage angst) at the same time. What I don't understand is why some people (like you, for example) would write such cruel things about other religions and cultures. I can understand you wanting to have your own opinion, etc. But calling all Islamic people "terrorists"?
You need to take another look at what we have written about Islam. We never said that all Muslims were terrorists. What we stated was that in Islam, it is the obligation of all Muslims to live according to the teachings of Islam and the Koran. This is not some ideology we are inventing. This is what Muslims believe. They believe the Koran is the word directly from Allah, not from man. It is God's law, not man's law. We believe that most Muslims are not radical terrorists, but Islam is a radical religion. Look at what the leaders of Islam have publicly stated. We have the quotes. If you want to see the truth about Islam, take the time to read the "Islamic Links" on this website.
With most of the acts of terrorism committed by serious followers of Islam, why does the world not see a worldwide public outcry against these Muslims from the other 1.3 billion Muslims? Every Muslim should be rallying against Muslim terrorists, but we see barely a whimper from the Muslim community. When we do see something, all we see is an excuse that these terrorists are not "true Muslims" when these terrorists are actually very serious students of Islam and many can recite the Koran from memory. Why is that? There is a reason. By Islamic law, it is considered bad form to speak against a Muslim doing God's duty according to the Koran. To Muslims, a world without non-Muslims is the goal. To most Muslims, non-Islamic religions and beliefs are an insult to Islam.
Despite what you might want to believe, Islam is not a tolerant religion. It is not a peaceful religion. It is religion of submission and by force if necessary. If you do not believe this, try practicing some other religion in an Islamic country. In Saudi Arabia, just giving a Bible to a Muslim is a punishable offense with a mandatory prison sentence. Another point to keep in mind is that many serious Muslims around the world share a fascination with Adolf Hitler and his writings in "Mein Kampf". They have this belief in sync with the teachings of the Koran.
Am I a terrorist for wanting to be myself, and believe what I want? Am I a terrorist because I believe what the ELF has done is right?
You can believe anything you want. You are free to do that. Apparently, you believe that destroying someone else's property is an acceptable form of speech or protest. We have never stated you were a terrorist. However, by your own admission, you clearly are a supporter of the terrorist actions committed by the ELF.
What if you believed in something that was in direct opposition to what the ELF stated? Would they have the right to destroy your home and terrorize you?
The actions committed by the ELF movement are not morally, ethically, or legally right. Being a teenage girl, you might not know that it is wrong to destroy the property of others. You should know this, but apparently you do not. The ELF movement does not have the authority to do what it does when it vandalizes someone else's property for whatever reason they feel justified.
Allow us to present a question to you. If it is morally right for "Animal Rights Activists" to attack and destroy property in the name of Animal Rights, the environment, global warming, etc..., is it morally right for someone to target and commit an act of violence or destruction against the same activist for whatever reason they view as justifiable?
I sure was not one of the men who hijacked a plane on 9/11. So why call these people "terrorists"?
Are you saying that the 9-11 terrorists would not be terrorists if the World Trade Center was destroyed with no loss of human life (other than the terrorists)? That is essentially what you say happens when the ELF destroys someone's possessions but no one is physically harmed. Is that what you are saying that you believe?
Terrorism is defined by Princeton Univ. as : ' the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) AGAINST CIVILIANS in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.'
You are absolutely right. That is an accurate definition of Terrorism. It is much like the definition we offer.
"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...
No where on your website did you state that the ELF committed acts of violence against any American citizen (or any person, in this case).
All of the attacks were against American citizens. Do you not understand that? Arson is a violent act. Vandalism is a violent act. It is meant to be violent. That is the point. It is harmful to the person targeted. When someone's home is invaded or attacked, it causes financial and emotional damage to everyone living in the house, both adults and children - to instill fear by property destruction. How does that not conform to the meaning of terrorism based on the definition that you offered? Think about it, no one wants to leave their home and return to find it destroyed, vandalized, or burned to the ground. To worry about things like that as a real possibility is to live in fear and that is what these terrorists that use Animal Rights as an excuse want to do.
These people would love to use these same tactics on us even though we do not harm animals. We only differ due to ideology and we voice our opinion. These "activists" hate. They hate anyone that does not believe as they do or anyone that is willing to voice a contrary opinion backed up with facts. They hate anyone that stands in their way from accomplishing what they want to achieve. Take a look at Ryan Daniel Lewis, Lili Marie Holland, Eva Rose Holland, and Jeremiah Dean Colcleasure . They did not like new houses being built so they attempted to firebomb a new housing development, not save animals. This had nothing to do with Animal Rights. They did not like people with money buying new high-priced homes. These four people hold the same anti-Capitalist, anti-Corporation views that the rest of the Animal Rights movement centers itself.
I noticed that you said something along the lines of, "Children have been targeted for attacks!". You are incorrect in so many ways with this statement. The ELF is against any harm towards humans, animals, etc. I also noticed that you compared the ELF to the KKK... where do you even get this idea from??
If you know your history, you will see that the KKK used the same tactics. They burned buildings to the ground. They vandalized homes of people they detested. That is where we got that idea. Where do you think the ELF and the other Animal Rights activists got their ideas?
So you question the quote, 'Children have been target for attacks!" Allow us to give you the quotes.
"There are about 2,000 people prepared at any one time to take action for us... The children [of targeted scientists and executives] are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should they 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, ALF leader, Sunday Herald (Scotland) Sept. 19, 2004
Here we see where children can be targeted for protest. Keep in mind what the word 'protest' means to these people. It means terrorize. It means vandalize. It means threaten. Please do not say that this is the ALF and not the ELF. There is no substantial difference in the ALF and the ELF. They use the same tactics for the same reasons. Keep in mind how these people protest. They destroy the property of others. They seek to terrorize people they hate because of political ideology. If you can find a difference, we would love to hear what you think the difference is.
"As my close colleague, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, surmised - and I back him 100% on this - the assassination of a vivisector or two would probably save millions of nonhuman animal lives. And given the escalating situation at UCLA, who knows what may happen?"
-- Jason Miller, relentless anti-capitalist, animal liberationist, and senior editor and founder of Thomas Paine's Corner. Jason Miller is also a Press Officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAAPO)
When you least expect it, in a hallway or on an elevator, in the stairwell or going to your car after torturing primates all day, you'll get a much bigger puncture from a 10cc syringe right in your back filled with rat poison, and we'll be gone so fast you'll never know who did it. We know where you go during the day, we know where you do your dry cleaning, we know where you shop and we know that you will end up being cornered and taught a lesson you and your family will never forget. Until you end your experimentation on primates, we'll be in your life forever watching, waiting and then doing to you exactly what you do to them.
-- An Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Communiqué threatening UCLA researchers as reported by Jerry Vlasak's North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAAPO) website on 26 March 2009
Here we see where a threat of death by an animal "activist" using a syringe and rat poison.
"While innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles, pleading, protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to achieve."
-- Earth Liberation Front issued a communiqué claiming responsibility for an arson attack on a U.S. Forest Service research facility in Irvine, PA in 2002
Here we see where using firearms are to be implemented as a part of their protesting and sabotage. It is all done in an effort to violently attack their targets.
You can see more of these quotes by reading "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".
The KKK was a group of white supremacists who violated the little rights that African Americans had back then. The last time I checked, the Earth Liberation Front did not go around in white suits, physically scarring citizens with their own two hands. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Have you ever seen videos of protesters in any major city (Think back in time a few years, not the Occupy Movement) ? Large amounts of police brutality were used on these peaceful protesters. Why did they deserve this? Last I checked, A public park is PUBLIC.
When you see these "activists" from the ELF and the other Animal Rights groups, you see them wearing hooded sweatshirts with black bandanas hiding their faces much like Islamic terrorists. The only difference in the attire of the KKK and the ELF are the colors.
Public parks are just that… PUBLIC. They there for everyone, not just a narrow segment of society that wishes to control and dictate the way everyone else should live. Because you did not specify which protests you are speaking of, it is hard to give an intelligent answer to your question. Were the protesters there legally? You will find that if protesters are peaceful and are protesting with the proper permits, you will see this does not happen. Police rarely have clashes with protesters unless problems occur. Some of the exceptions would be the race riots during the 1960s. Is this the example you speak of?
Did you see anything like this with the Tea Party Demonstrations?
Why ignore the Occupy Movement. They hold very same viewpoint of the Animal Rights Movement - Marxist doctrine, anti-Capitalism, anti-Corporation. The thought processes of the people that are part of the Occupy Movement are the very same thought processes of the people that make up the Animal Rights Movement. There is very little difference. Their agenda is the same.
I don't have much else to say, but I hoped this E-Mail opened your eyes to what you have been posting to your website. Some one else could come along (doing research for a simple school project), like me; and their world can be changed. No offense to my generation, but they tend to believe anything they read on the internet. Now you see the dilemma. We don't need radical white supremacists in this generation, too. I thank you for your time in reading this, and hope you all have a great night.
Sincerely,
Ashli S.
So far, you have not stated anything that is incorrect on this website. You have misread a few things. We are able to excuse this somewhat due to your youth. You have not matured enough to prevent your emotions from getting the best of you. It is obvious you do not like what we have written. It is not all that pretty. The truth is not always pretty. We understand that. But everything on this website is factual. It is not a good thing that most of the world's terrorists are Muslims committing the atrocities they commit in the name of Islam, but it is a reality. The same is true of the Animal Rights Movement and groups that resort to terrorist styled tactics.
Perhaps you do not understand the purpose of this website. This website is here to make a stand against terrorism in all of its forms. We stand against Socialism, Communism, and any other forms of Marxism. We do not support terrorism in any form. If you missed this message contained within the 150+ pages of this website, we would recommend that you take another look at the contents with an open mind clear of negative emotions and you will see what we actually stand for.
--TOP--
E-mails from Aislinn Sjölander
2 of 2
30 March 2012
Aislinn Sjölander wrote:
Even If you did not say that "all Muslims are terrorists", you surely implied it.
This is an emotional response to a statement we never stated. You so much want to see what you think we should be saying because you seek to find fault with this website. What we said was that Islam is not a Religion of Peace. The word "Islam" might translated as "Peace" to Muslims, but to non-Muslims it does not. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that was founded as a religion of forced conversion with no tolerance of other religions or non-Islamic thought. With Shariah Law, it is not compatible with Democracy, Freedom, or Liberty. Islam is a religion that looks down upon all other religions and all other non-Muslim people as not worthy of life. This is easily seen in Islamic teachings by the religious leaders and Islamic actions that make the news daily.
Not all Muslims are good Muslims. That statement can be taken several ways. To non-Muslims, a good Muslim does not engage in terrorism. A good Muslim does not support terrorism and speaks out against terrorism. A good Muslim is ashamed by Islamic terrorists. A good Muslim tolerates other religions to exist and flourish.
To fundamentalist Muslims, the above description is not a good Muslim. To the fundamentalist Muslim, a good Muslim lives and dies by the Koran and the teachings of the Muslim leadership. To the fundamentalist Muslim, deceit is a weapon to be used against non-Muslims. A good Muslim stands with their Muslim brothers and sisters. A good Muslim does not speak against the actions of another Muslim. That is why you see so little action against Islamic terrorists.
Every Muslim is expected to be and wants to be a good Muslim. It just depends on who they decide to answer to - non-Muslims or the Mullahs at the local mosque.
By saying that Islam is not a 'religion of peace', you are saying that any one who follows the Islamic faith is not a peaceful person. I happen to know well over 10 Muslims. And I don't mean "American Muslims", either. I mean people who live in Egypt, India, and Iran. I've met these people in person, and not one of them would harm a fly. Yes, I understand that this is 10 out of who knows how many people. But, if 10 random people are harmless, why not those other people?
We can show you 19 Muslims from the Middle East that have no problem killing any non-Muslim and did so on 11 September 2001. Did you mean those people? We can give you over 18,000 examples of Islamic terrorism.
Islam is not a Religion of Peace. Islam does not tolerate other religions. In its history, Islam has allowed other religions to exist under the umbrella of Islam provided they pay a tax to exist, but usually they just kill in the name of their religion. Muslims have done so since its inception 1400 years ago.
You stated that the leaders of Islam stated certain things that may deem them 'radical'. Just because a leader of a certain region states something does not mean every single person agrees and follows with what that person is saying. Answer me this: is Islam the only 'radical' religion, as you so call it? Look at Christianity. The crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the KKK, etc. Radical Christians may not have crashed an airplane into a government building, but they sure have done some equivalence.
Let us use Christianity as an example. Christianity has had its dark moments in its history and we will concur that these actions were wrong, but it is not the general nature of Christianity. If you actually look at Islam, you will see that it is at war with every other religion on the planet. No other religion can say that. You have stated that Christianity has done some horrible acts equal to Islam. That is exactly what we are saying. These actions of Muslims have been EVIL in the past, are EVIL now, and they continue to be EVIL in the future. You do not see these atrocities currently being committed by Muslims are not being committed by Christians, Jews, Hindus, or any other religious groups. But you do see Muslims committing crimes against people of other religions for the sole reason that they hold other values and worship in a non-Islamic tradition.
We have shown what Muslim leaders have said. We did not make up these statements. The quotes we have are accurate. You have not disputed any of the facts, you just do not like that we have place these quotes on the website for all to see.
If you want to compare Islam with Christianity, look at the good that Christian Missionaries do all over the world. You see nothing like that from Islam. What you do see is Muslims killing the Christians. You see Christian groups helping people all over the world. You rarely, if ever, see Muslim groups unselfishly helping people around the world. You never see help coming from Islamic groups to non-Muslims.
I never came out and said "I think destroying some one's property is good/right." I think the damage the ELF caused was not entirely right in the way that it effected other people. But the fact that the ELF stood up for what they believe in, is what I consider to be "right".
You state it is "not entirely right". Do you not understand that it is wrong in every way regardless of the motives? What we take from your statement is that if you believe an action to be right, then it is ok for someone to target and take action against a law abiding citizen? Is that what you are saying? Guess what… The 19 Islamic terrorists that hijacked and crashed four planes on 11 September 2001 stood up for that they believed. Other Muslims all over the world were dancing in the streets upon hearing the news. Not all Muslims, but way too many were celebrating. They did not see what a terrible act this was. They danced and thanked Allah.
And I'm pretty sure that someone such as Daniel McGowan would not have shown up on my doorstep and blew up my home, because I disagreed with what they were doing. In what way would that be harming the environment? Seeing as how that is the only reason they did what they did.
What would stop Daniel McGowan from showing up on your doorstep and damaging your home? Would it matter if it was someone else other than Daniel McGowan? What if it was some other person or group with some other reason to hate you? What if they just had a different agenda they wanted to impose on you? What you do not seem to understand is that they did not have the right or the authority to do what they do.
I enjoyed the stereotype you included about teenagers, you seem to stereotype a lot. Not all teenagers are naive. Not all teenagers go around and bully other kids, or vandalize property. I sure don't. "Allow us tp present a question.....reason they view as justifiable?" : Obviously the victims have spoken out, or the associates of the ELF wouldn't be sitting in jail.
No, but you seem to support others that damage the property of others. You never did answer the question. It was a moral question. Does the ELF, or any other group, have the right to do the damage they do? Of course the victims spoke out against these criminals. You actually stated our case. You called the people attacked by the ELF movement "Victims". Yes they are and they are no different than assault victims, car theft victims, or rape victims and these victims were attacked by people with no morals and if it was the ELF that committed the attack, the ELF has your support because they stood up for what they believe.
Exactly how did we stereotype you? Your e-mail stating your comments and admission that you were a teenage girl is what stereotyped you. It is clear you do not have a good understanding of right and wrong by the very fact that you support the ELF. You cannot even answer the question we presented to you. Allow us to present it to you again.
If it is morally right for "Animal Rights Activists" to attack and destroy property in the name of animal rights, the environment, global warming, etc..., is it morally right for someone to target and commit an act of violence or destruction against the same activist for whatever reason they view as justifiable?
Technically, 9/11 would not have happened had there been no intention of lives being lost. Those men did not plan this attack out in a way that there would be no workers in those buildings.
You are right, that was the intention - to kill. But what if there had not been any loss of human life? Would the 19 Islamic terrorists have your support then? What if the terrorists had leased two cargo 747s and called ahead to anounce their intentions with a warning to get everyone out of the buildings then crashed into the World Trade Center. Would that have been an act of terrorism? How is that any different than what the ELF does?
The ELF made sure everyone was out of harm's way.
So that is your argument, there were no witnesses? That justifies their actions in your mind that no one was physically harmed. What if the ELF attackers decided not to set this self-imposed limitation? What if the ELF movement targeted you by accident because they had the wrong address? Would you feel the same?
And yes, no one wants to return to their home to find it vandalized, much in the same way that these environmentalists do not want to return to their "home" cut down and processed.
How is it their home when they do not own the property? They have no legal right to the property. So many environmentalists think that all land belongs to them. You know this by the way you placed the word "home" in quotation marks. It is not really their home; they just want to stake a claim on land that is not theirs to have.
Why is it ok to harvest vegetables but not trees? Trees are a natural renewable product, yet there is such an outcry when someone wants to cut down a tree.
I do know my history, the KKK not only burnt down homes and such, they also killed anyone they detested. They hated these people so much that they had the initiative to end their lives.
The ELF hates people so much they destroy their homes. Explain the difference. Is it because no one was physically harmed? Is that the way you are able to justify the morality of their actions?
What if the KKK had not harmed anyone physically? Would that have legitimized their actions? They are standing up for what they believe. That is what you are saying separates the ELF and the KKK – the killing. If you take away the killing, according to you, the KKK and the ELF are the same.
Do you get your quotations off of some internet source? No everything on the internet is legitimate, you know.
We got the quotes from many sources and they are all accurate. What quotes do you think are incorrect or inaccurate? If you are going to accuse us of not being accurate, you have to be specific in your accusations.
And every time I've seen an ELF protester, they've been dirtied by the hardships of a "hippie life", so to say. Only the people who committed crimes dressed in black. But yet, with the Occupy movement, people obeyed the law. If they were asked to leave the property- they left. On some occasions they were not given fair warning and beaten off of the property.
The Occupy Protesters broke the law on numerous occasions. They were all given fair warning to vacate certain areas. When refused to leave, they were pepper sprayed.
I really wish you would quit referring to my "youth". You say this as if I was an eight year old who wants to be a Vet when she grows up. Your information may be factual, but most of it is also bias and stereotypical. Facts should be facts only, not mixed with opinions.
Thanks again,
Ashli
The bias and stereotypical qualities you offer are nothing more than the emotional response of your youth. It has nothing to do with the facts that you admit are factual. You feel the compulsion to try and denigrate the facts we have presented with emotional thinking rather than rational and intellectual thought. We have offered our opinions based on the facts and are clearly differentiated as opinions. You have offered your opinion based on the emotional thought process that allows you to try to justify, at least on some level, that the ELF movement is partially right in its actions because they stand for something.
Remember that we did not mention your youth first, you did. One day when you go into the world and have to work and earn a living, you will understand the hard work that is necessary to achieve a good life and why it is wrong for someone to destroy what you have worked hard to earn. You will learn that your standard of living is a product of the work you produce. When someone destroys what you have worked hard to earn, you will see why actions that empower the terrorist styled Animal Rights groups is wrong.
--TOP--
21 March 2012
Mazen Mokhtar wrote:
Biggest f*cking goofs. Dumb f*cks. Remember this website when you're in your grave.
Stupid f*cks
We receive a lot of e-mails like this all the time and your e-mail illustrates your ignorance and total lack of even a rudimentary education - certainly no education that any respectable teacher would want to stake a claim. You probably do not understand our assessment of your e-mail, but if you ask someone capable of rational thought, they will be happy to show you how we came to this conclusion. Any English teacher at the local high school would be more than happy to assist you with this.
We have decided to print your e-mail because it shows that people like yourself that respond to us with e-mails of this intellectual quality are completely lacking any mental capacity of rational thought and have absolutely no intellectual substance whatsoever. Your ignorance is a shinning beacon for those that despise the material on this website even thought they can muster no argument to the contrary. We offer information you are completely ill-prepared to dispute, yet you attempt to do so with the only weapon in your mental arsenal – insults, personal attacks, and profanity.
Do you not find it strange that we never wish anything happen to you but you are so quick to hate us? We have never tried to stop you from speaking. In fact, we actually help spread your message by printing your e-mail as we are doing here. But all people like you want is for us to go away and stop having an opinion. It seems you are not a fan of the First Amendment, are you? To people like you, Freedom of Speech is only for people that share your views, such as the ones you presented in this e-mail so proudly. The truth is your e-mail shows you are completely unable to offer a single argument to anything on this website so you have to resort to insults, profanity, and a total lack of any intelligent thought. Based on the level of education displayed in your e-mail, it is doubtful that you even understood what this website is all about and the reason for its existence.
--TOP--
E-mails from matt dylan
1 of 2
12 March 2012
matt dylan wrote:
Aside from the terrorist activists whats your thoughts on animal rights in general??
We do not believe in the Animal Rights as the Animal Rights Activists do. We firmly believe that unnecessary cruelty toward animals is morally wrong. We do believe in using animals in medical research because there is no substitution. How else do you find medicines for animals to take care of their health? Many drugs that are used on animals are modified for human use. Cancer drugs are tested on animals and then they are tested on humans. Drugs are tested on humans every day and they are tested on humans more than they are on animals i.e. non-humans.
Animals are used in the production of all sorts of products that humans use daily. Humans are also used in this testing. Much of this testing would not be necessary if the product liability protection was not necessary, but because this is a very litigious world, corporations need to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.
Animal Rights Movement maintains very anti-Capitalist and Socialist beliefs as can be verified by the propaganda that permeates their literature and sound bites. If you look at the editorial "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement", the connection to the anti-capitalist agenda is quite clear. Most of the Animal Rights leadership is not even concerned with animals at all. The subject of Animal Rights is the excuse they use for their anti-capitalist agenda. That is the sad part. But please, read what they have to say. Take a close look at what they say. We have the quotes.
We believe that pet ownership is a good thing and it forms a close bond between humans and their pets. But if you look at the Animal Rights quotes, you can see that so many want to end this relationship. They continue to make the claim that animals are equal to humans, yet they want to make everyone a vegetarian and end the diet of meat. How can this be? Are we to believe that humans less equal than bears, pigs, raccoons, and other omnivores because they are allowed to eat meat whenever they like.
The consumption of meat by humans becomes a question of Freedom and Liberty. It is no one's business what my diet consists of or the way I choose to live my life as long as I live within the laws of civilized society. Neither is it my business what anyone within the Animal Rights consumes as food. Who are they to determine what anyone else is allowed to eat? If we decide that the laws of civilized society mean nothing, then we have no civilization and therefore no rights at all other than the rights we give ourselves.
Here is a quote we would like to present.
"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."
-- David Meyer, July 2006
The lion exploits the weakness and slow speed of its prey to feed the pride. The antelope exploits the lack of endurance of the cheetah to get away and survive another day. Animals exploit plants to survive and plants exploit animals to survive. This is natural. This is nature. Man is no different. Just like all other animals, Man uses his brain to figure out how to survive another day and this includes the exploitation of every possible entity to provide food, shelter, security, and any other advantage necessary to survive just one more minute, one more hour, one more day. This aspect of nature is what the Animal Rights Movement completely ignores or refuses to accept.
--TOP--
E-mails from matt dylan
2 of 2
13 March 2012
matt dylan wrote:
About the testing thing they already have a cure for cancer its anti neoplaston treatment and animal testing can be better replaced with simulation in heated temps. And etc. And it doesnt harm anyone. Also do you eat meat??? And it shouldnt be legal that's the problem I think because its terrible. I am not a terrorist by the way I just think animal cruelty is wrong. How would you like to be a lab rat or beagle I think it would suck.
In our conversations, we have never thought of you as a terrorist and we hope we have not come across that way. We think that animal cruelty is wrong too. Being cruel to an animal for the sake of being cruel is morally and ethically wrong and we have never stated anything to the contrary.
Which cancer do they have a cure for? There are so many. I know they do not have a cure for breast cancer, lung cancer, throat cancer, ovarian cancer, or pancreatic cancer. So which cancer(s) have been found a cure?
Are you a doctor? How do you know that animal testing can be totally replaced in every case with "simulation in heated temps"? If that is true, you should go around to all the medical research labs and inform them of this revelation. Is this a cheaper alternative to animal testing? How does this method work in determining the dosage of a drug and how effective the new drug will be?
We do eat meat and we like it. Here is the question that we can never get someone that thinks that eating meat is evil. Why can humans not enjoy the same rights that a bear enjoys when it comes to eating meat? If it is legal/moral/ethical for a bear to eat meat, why is it not for a human? When bears catch an animal, they eat it while it is still alive. At least humans kill the animal before eating it.
How would you like to be a cottontail bunny living in the wild? Is that what you want? Did you know that a wild cottontail has a life expectancy of approximately 30 days before a predator or disease kills it? Living in the wild is not necessarily a pleasant experience. It is just one that most animals have endured since there were animal on this planet.
As much as you do not like us eating meat, you have to explain why it is morally and/or ethically wrong for humans to eat meat, but not other animals? Is it wrong and should it be illegal to feed your dog or cat meat or meat by products? If not, why are some animals allowed to eat meat and other are not? Where is the line drawn?
--TOP--
E-mails from Alex Hecklan
1 of 2
06 March 2012
Alex Hecklan wrote:
My name is Alexander James Hecklan, founder of the Angry Animals Conservation Society. You really need to get your facts straight. The fact that eco-"terrorists" have never physically harmed a sole is no coincidence. Organizations like ours plan out actions for months before we carry them out, to ensure we only save lives, and harm no one, therefore we are non-violent. Arson is a crime, and I know that, but the right thing to do isn't always what is legal. Why do we test on, slaughter, and abuse other creatures? Is it because they are at a lower level of intellect? If so, (like I've said many times before), why don't we go around testing on, abusing, and eating those who are mentally challenged? Do we hurt them because they are different? If so, then we are all racists!
So you spend months planning out attacks on people. How many months of planning did the eco-terrorist that left a fire bomb on the porch of an elderly lady thinking that it was the home of Lynn Fairbanks? They did not even have the right address despite the "months" of planning. Luckily, they were too incompetent to ignite the device. What about the attack on Linda's Fashions? The eco-terrorist that vandalized the store did not even know the store did not even sell furs, the very reason the store was targeted... another example of incompetence from "months of planning".
Why do you limit yourself to "non-violence" against humans? Why do you choose not to harm anyone physically? As you stated, "the right thing to do isn't always what is legal." So why limit yourself to not harming anyone? Could you actually be critical to any activist that took it to the next level? What grounds would you condemn someone that did this? They would just say that, "the right thing to do isn't always what is legal," and just look at you as not having the necessary commitment to do what was needed to be done to achieve the desired results.
We do like the way you use the word "racists". To use it in the context you did proves you have no idea what it really means, but it does meet the characteristic of #144 on the list of "Are You A Liberal".
Speaking of racism, how do your actions differ from those of the KKK burning the homes of people they find offensive? What is the difference in the actions? In this case, no one is harmed so what is the difference?
If you want to change the laws on animal testing, we will not get in your way. If you actually read the website, you will not find us actually endorsing animal testing. We just ask questions Animal Rights Activists can never answer. Questions like the following. In the advancement of medical research where animals are used, what is your suggestion for a suitable replacement?
There is testing on humans all the time and the only times we can remember when it is used on the mentally challenged is perhaps when test subjects are college students who believe that socialism is a good idea.
Why do companies test on animals? That is a good question. Do you think they do it just to spend the money when it is so unnecessary? There must be a reason and it is probably likely that the reason is product liability. Perhaps they use animals to find cures for the very animals used in the testing. Drugs that veterinary doctors use have to be tested on something, right?
As far as eating meat, why do humans not have the same rights as bears, raccoons, crows, woodpeckers or any other omnivore?
Have you ever planned and committed an action against PeTA? They have killed animals because they do not wish to take the time to actually place the animals in a good home so they can live out their lives in a loving home. If not, why not? You even mention them on your website.
Here is a question we can never find an Animal Rights person to answer. Let us see if you have the courage to actually answer the question rather than ignore it.
If it is morally right for "Animal Rights Activists" to attack and destroy property in the name of Animal Rights, the environment, global warming, etc..., is it morally right for someone to target and commit an act of violence or destruction against the same activist for whatever reason they view as justifiable?
The last point I would like to mention is the fact that you are trying to abolish violence committed by terrorists, yet you have a f*cking "hit-list" on your website! You f*cking hypocrites! Do me a favor, and research you facts before you share them online you dumbf*cks! If people like you didn't exist, there would be no us, no A.L.F., and no eco-"terrorists" on this Earth! You are the problem, not us! F*CK YOU C*NTS, YOU WILL NEVER STOP US!
What facts do you dispute? We know we will not receive an answer to that question. You have no intention of citing any specifics facts on this website; you are too busy hating our existence.
Unlike groups like you are part of, we have never advanced the idea that any action should be taken against anyone on this website. Terrorizing people is wrong. We know this is not news to you. It is just that you do not care about other people. There will always be people like you because there will always be people that believe that certain laws should not apply to you or that your rebel nature entitles you to destroy other people's lives. After all, that is how your actions are designed to work, right?
We call the page in question a "Hit List" because it infuriates Liberals such as it has with you… And by your mentioning of it, it is clear this devious strategy of ours is still working exactly as planned. It would not matter what we called this page because it would have the same meaning. We could have titled it the "Enemies List" or "Terrorist List" or "Painted Pony List". We could have not even given it a name. It is a list of groups and people wishing to harm other people. You make the claim that you are not harming anyone person, yet your actions are designed to do just that. The reason you burn down houses is because is causes harm, so your inane theory of not harming anyone is a lie from the first thought. It is the harm that you cause that gives you strength.
It is too bad that you cannot actually speak intelligently without having to resort to profanity, personal attacks, or insults. We do not expect anything more from you.
"We cannot be assimilated, and will only assimilate others and continue to grow as the years pass, and may we one day wish that our society is the entire world. Only then, will we have fufilled our goals."
That quote is very reminiscent of the values of al-Qaeda, HAMAS, and any other Islamic terrorist group. It is easy to see why you included it in your e-mail.
Until every cage has been emptied, AND YOU ARE IN ONE!..............The Angry Animals Conservation Society
So you wish we were in a cage because we do not break the law or because we mention the actions of such groups as yours or because we have an opinion about such criminal behavior. We had never heard of you before this e-mail. Thank you for the introduction to your group.
--TOP--
E-mails from Alex Hecklan
2 of 2
08 March 2012
Alex Hecklan wrote:
I am challenging facts on your website.
What facts do you dispute? All you have said is that by destroying someone's property, no harm is done. Any rational thinking person knows you do not really believe this because the reason for the attack is to do harm. You are claiming that because you do not physical harm anyone, you have not committed an act of terrorism. The fact is a crime is being committed when an act of vandalism destroys someone's property because it does harm the person whose property is being destroyed. It is an act of terrorism when the person targeted was singled out for whatever reason and their property was destroyed as an act of vengeance with the intent of instilling fear to that person. That is the very point of the attack and destruction of property.
I am challenging the fact that you call us terrorists! The difference between us and terrorists is that that we actually save lives, and once more have never physically harmed a sole.
By definition you are terrorists. Examine the actions in question then look at the definition of the word "Terrorist". The idea of attacking and destroying someone else's property is a threat to the person that is the target of the attack. The attack is meant to terrorize by its very nature. To instill fear is the reason for the destruction of property.
By your standard, if the 9-11 Islamic Terrorists had not killed anyone and only crashed empty airliners into the World Trade Center thereby destroying them, this would not have been an act of terrorism because no one would have been harmed. You might have even considered it an act of Free Speech instead of the terrorist act it was and was meant to be.
Of course it is our view that by destroying other people's property, you have indeed harmed people. You have harmed them financially at a minimum. If you do not consider this act to be a crime, they you could not consider Identity Theft to be a crime because in Identity Theft, no one is physically harmed.
Had you not been another ignorant moron you may also have realized that I placed a "you" in the place of a "your" in the middle of my letter! HA! Poorly educated, as I hypothosized!
Your mistake is ignorance on your part, not ours. We printed your e-mail exactly as we receive it aside from trying to sanitize certain words that some people are unable to avoid using when they cannot intelligently state their position without resorting to profanity due to a limited vocabulary. We absolutely want people to see the how people like you actually write an e-mail. You know, give credit where credit is due. As clearly stated at the top of the page, we make no corrections for grammar or spelling.
There are other mistakes contained within your e-mails that we did not correct. As others read these e-mails from you, they will clearly see the level of your education. That is why we never make corrections to the e-mails we receive. We believe you meant to write "soul" instead of "sole" when referring to harming people, but maybe you really meant that any Direct Action attacks had not physically harmed any shoes, boots, and/or other footwear.
We were laughingly fascinated with your own spelling of "hypothosized". We are not going to address the other misspellings, along with your views in these e-mails, which stand as a glaring monument to the level of your education, intellect, and moral values.
Lastly, in response to the comment on PETA, yes, I have spoke out on many occasions against them!
Yes, but you have not actually committed a direct action against them. Why not? This leads us to believe that while you support and promote direct action, you have not actually involved yourself as you would like others to believe. This would explain why we have never heard of your group prior to you writing us. Of course, you are always free to tell us of your direct actions committed in the name of Animal Rights.
I would not be surprised if this wasn't published, since I obviously have a point.
Sincerely, A. Hecklan
It is published. The only point you have is that you have totally failed to commit a direct action against PeTA and you are never going to commit a direct action against PeTA. You are not going to commit a "harmless" attack where no person is physically harmed.
P.S. Next time I will use the term "speciesist" instead of racist, when adressing you.
We are not telling you what to say. You can use whatever words you like and we encourage that. When you write us, we only want what is in your heart, mind, and intellectual ability to be contained within the e-mails you send us. We were just correcting what we considered your misuse of the word "racist". If "racist" is what you meant to say, far be it for us to tell you otherwise.
--TOP--
E-mails from Jesse Michael
1 of 2
12 February 2012
Jesse Michael wrote:
Your website is awesome! Thank you! I am learning about all these leftist/anti-capitalist groups I had no idea existed before I read your website.
I think it's kinda weird that you don't think American Nazis and Aryan Nation folks hate America, because, well, they obviously do considering most americans are not aryan (you're probably all like "THEY'RE NOT AMERICAN IF THEIR AN IMMIGRANT". And well, I guess America was kinda inhabited when Europeans came. But, Native Americans aren't really people, so...okay okay, I see where you're
going.
So what, are you just one crazy fat dude masturbating over ineffectual liberal groups? I mean, most of the groups you've listed on your site aren't considered a real threat. You need to do your homework, fatty.
I live in Idaho. Lot's of awesome, fat, white racists here you could have gay sex with.
Okay, have fun with your suppressed homosexuality! Don't take it out on little boys, although, I suspect you already have.
In solidarity,
Jesse
It is clear that your e-mail is a bit disingenuous not that anyone here is surprised. Your disdain for us is ever so apparent. It is too bad that this correspondence is the very best that you could muster. The time you took to write your thoughts with no time restriction clearly illustrates the epitome of your intellectual development. You must be so proud of your display of "mental superiority". Apparently, insults and personal attacks are the extent of your critical thinking. Not a single reference to any intelligent thought at all. You must be so proud launching this volley of torpedoes with explosively charged insults demonstrating the limits of your conceptual and rational thinking that makes you what you are and in such a dramatic fashion.
You say that we need to do our homework. What do you mean? You have not stated a single incorrect fact, idea, or opinion on this website. You did not address a single idea on the website. Apparently you do not have the ability to think rationally or to form a single idea that disputes any facts presented.
Aside from your insults, all you have actually stated is being in solidarity with people that abuse children. This falls into our theory that if you are a criminal, sex offender, or drug addict, sex offender, illegal alien, or on welfare, you are a thousand times more likely to vote for the candidate advocating the Liberal agenda - an ideology we vehemently oppose. Of course, you know of our opposition of the Liberal/Socialist Ideology because of the scalding e-mail you wrote. Our staunch opposition to this ideology was the primary motivation for your e-mail.
If you had actually read the website, you would have seen how we do not support any White Supremacist groups and have actually shown that fact within the 150+ pages of this website.
Perhaps this would be a good time to explain the differences between you and us. Left-wing Liberals do not seem to have the cognitive abilities to grasp discipline, hard work, and integrity. Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance are foreign concepts. They expect so much of life to be given to them at the expense of others. This flies in the face of those four ideals.
This is what we believe and this is the reason you insult us.
This is the Liberal view of the US Constitution is one that believes that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document. It expands and contracts with time. Sometimes, it must cast off things that are no longer useful. The US Constitution is a hindrance to the Liberal agenda because it limits what government can do. It does not limit the freedom of the individual citizen. The reason it was written was to limit government. This is why Liberals always want to change it, go around it, or just outright ignore it.
This is what we illustrate when we publish the photos of Liberals and their actions and this is the reason you insult us.
Because it is obvious that you do not understand this website, it is important to note the following facts. True Socialists do not actually want to live under Socialism; they want to live over Socialism. They understand what Socialism is and how restrictive it is. Socialism turns people into refugees that are totally dependent on the generosity of the government. It is their desire to force everyone else to live under the rule of Socialism with such conviction with all of its promises of free food, healthcare, and everything else promised by the ruling class. However, the leaders that proclaim the greatness of Socialism will make sure they are exempted from the restrictions that apply to the rest of the population. The truth face of Socialism is a limited existence with very little hope of ever gaining anything more than a daily ration and living a life as the government requires.
Because we write about this point is the reason you hate us.
We adhere to the ideals we mentioned earlier: Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and Self-Reliance. These are the cornerstones to everything we believe and the way we live our lives. This is what we try to advance. We understand your desire to fight is on this matter. We understand your need to denigrate, malign, and insult us. It is all you have in your mental arsenal. You are no different than the many others that have put forth the same effort. You have no intellectual argument. We know this because you were so focused on thinking emotionally and insulting us you completely failed to present the slightest development of any intellectual or rational thought.
Because we state our beliefs with conviction is why you loathe us. Because you cannot dispute the facts stated on this website is why you have no choice but to resort to a weak offensive of personal attacks and insults to counter the facts.
You do not have a good argument... You do not even have a good excuse.
However, this e-mail does make us believe one thing and that is you are definitely the smart one within your pier group. Thank goodness your friends have you to look up to as a role model.
--TOP--
E-mails from Jesse Michael
2 of 2
13 February 2012
Jesse Michael wrote:
Ha, nice response. Do you have a saved file somewhere and copy-and-paste the hundreds of hate email you get.
Yes and it is called the "Hate Mail Page" and you made it.
Here's the thing: people could use rational arguments to prove you wrong. You could use, what you consider, rational argumentation to prove your delusional points. When you're blinded by an ideology, you're "rationality" is augmented by your ideological biases. Rationality isn't real. Have fun thinking you're intellectually superior to everyone who disagrees with you - that's delusional too.
You could use a rational argument to prove us wrong, but you were unable to find a rational argument. You seem to think that you are superior to us by your e-mails yet you are unable to actually form anything resembling an intelligent thought to have a rational discussion. This certainly does not make you anyone's intellectual superior.
Also, do you have any idea what an anarchist is? We kind of have a lot in common with people like you, but, we think that capitalism and the free market restricts freedom. We see it creating hierarchical structures with the rich on top and the poor masses working for them. The freedom of the poor is highly restricted within the context of a consumer economy, thus, it has nothing to do with freedom or American values.
Yes, we do know exactly what an Anarchist is. If you had bothered to read our editorial "Forms of Government", you would see our definition.
Seeing how you did not read it, here it is.
- Anarchism emerged out of the Socialist movement as a distinct politics in the nineteenth century.
- The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Whenever you see any group of anarchists, you always see communist doctrine. But for the sake of education, please explain how Anarchism is superior to Capitalism in elevating the poor and increasing their standard of living thereby improving their lives without taking from those that earn and giving to those that do not. This is an honest question. We would love to have an honest discussion on this subject.
--TOP--
27 January 2012
oldbat wrote:
You too are "targets of opportunity" for those that oppose racism, bigotry, and ignorance. You say one person can make a big difference. Are these some of your "heroes"; Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, Scott Roeder, James Von Brunn, Albert Jack O'Neal, Dustin Grey Fricke, Tiffany Dawn O'Neal Maxwell,and Wallace Woodard III, Joseph Stack, just to name a few? They fit your brand of sociopathic vigilantism.
You are absolutely right. These people would love to stop us from speaking. They would love to harm us. They do HATE us with a passion because we express our views. Their feelings toward us are so very clear. The one thing you failed to do was to cite specific examples of racism, bigotry, and ignorance on this website. As with so many e-mails from people that passionately dislike us, you failed to dispute a single fact.
No, they are not our heroes. Why would you think that? Did you even read this website? Where have we ever sided with any White Supremacist groups? If you actually bothered to read the Links Page, you would clearly see where we place all White Supremacist Groups. We have clearly spoken against everything these people represent that you offered as examples. Of course, this would require that you actually you read this website with an open mind. Your hatred of us is clear. You so want to associate us with some facet of bigotry that you cannot comprehend what we have actually said.
We do like the picture you send that actually shows the like mindedness of Paul Watson and the KKK, Neo Nazis, and the entire White Supremacist mindset. So, when you take an honest look at Timothy McVeigh, Jared Lee Loughner, Scott Roeder, James Von Brunn, Albert Jack O'Neal, Dustin Grey Fricke, Tiffany Dawn O'Neal Maxwell,and Wallace Woodard III, Joseph Stack, just to name a few, it is easy to see these people are more clearly representative of the actions you seem to support.
--TOP--
26 January 2012
Melissa Tulin wrote:
I came upon your website and while I don't agree with much of what's on it, I do support your right to free speech. However, don't you think that some people will misconstrue your disclaimer of "for educational purposes only" and go after some of the people on this list? There are quite a few unbalanced people out there. Don't you think your rhetoric is encouraging violence?
So many people write us and say they do not agree with this website, but no one ever actually challenges the facts.
We do not believe that some people will misconstrue anything on this website. The people that agree with us are law-abiding individuals. Unlike the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and the Animal Rights groups, we are not interested in destroying other people's property. We are not interested breaking the law or taking the law into our own hands. Proof of this can easily been seen when a comparison between "Occupy Wall Street" and the "Tea Party". How many people were arrested with each group? How out of control and violent was each group? How many laws were broken with each group? Drugs, public nudity, vandalism, and violence what was associated with "Occupy Wall Street" was completely absent in every Tea Party gathering.
While there are unbalanced people on all sides, you will find that the majority of the unbalanced belong to the groups we have listed on this website and we know this by their actions.
Also, while it's good that you put Stormfront and the Klan on your list of undesirables, at the same time you include a link to vdare, a website which often hosts articles by racist writers. As a person of color myself, I find this website offensive.
What has been published on vdare.com that you find so offensive? If you can show that vdare.com is a racist website, we would be happy to remove it from our links page.
Once again, I support your right to free speech, but perhaps you should tone things down a bit.
Melissa
If you are asking us to tone down the truth, that is the same as telling us not to print the truth. Sorry, that will not happen. The truth needs to be shouted as loud as it can be from the highest mountain for all to hear. If you can find where we have printed inaccurate material, we will gladly make the necessary correction. So far, you have not offered any examples.
--TOP--
19 January 2012
amaara haani wrote:
Dear whoevermadethiswebsite,
the whole content of your webpage is false and insult to the muslims everywhere. you've clearly read between the lines and based a webpage on a whole bunch of gibberish. please do your research well.
We know that this website is disliked by Muslims everywhere and the reason is because the information contained within is true. There is nothing incorrect or inaccurate. In fact, as with everyone else that has written us about any of the editorials on Islam, you have not disputed a single fact. All you have done is to make the accusation without a single intelligent thought disputing anything on the website. There is a reason for the lack of intelligent argument and that reason is that you have no argument. You cannot dispute the facts because they are totally accurate and without bias. The facts are undisputed and stand on their own.
However, we would certainly like to hear any specific details where we are wrong about Islam but if you do decide to attempt to dispute the facts, we want you to actually cite the specifics and not just offer a blanket that states we are wrong. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do this. So, please, tell us where we are wrong. We await your reply.
--TOP--
Back to the Top
Total Website Count
©Copyright 2005 - 2012 TargetOfOpportunity.com
|