ADL releases Report Similar to SPLC

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Don't try defending the guy who is quoted saying "sometimes violence is the answer".. you will lose.

Wait you already lost.. you just got caught harboring and defending criminals on your website.


b.t.w. for once I suggest your mods learn how to read ad hominem attacks since you seem to not notice all of the ones thrown at me.


[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

Originally posted by Thrice0ne
This topic is flipping ridiculous.

I am here supporting the stop of all threats made on the internet, and I get attacked by the members! Here the nice guy gets attacked!

Wow you ATSers sure know what side you are on.... the criminals side.

Good bye ATSers, you deserve to be on ADL's list.

I'm not attacking you because you're here to 'stop internet threats'. I'm pointing out that these aren't 'threats' at all in the main, and those which ARE threats would be properly dealt with by the proper authorities.

Are you not truly happy that neither of us gets to define what constitutes a 'threat', since the law has already defined that, and made it illegal? Were you allowed to define what constitutes a threat now, perhaps when the shoe was on the other foot I would be allowed to redefine what was a 'threat'.

I'm thinking there are some folks who would just not be happy with THAT situation at all!

I might get skeert, and point the finger at something that wasn't really an objective threat at all!

reply to post by Thrice0ne
Funny how you are so against violence, yet you are the one running around this thread having a tissy-fit calling us all criminals (lol - including the site's owner - smart move there cowboy). Calm down, cool out, and step away from the intertubez before you hurt somebody.

Otherwise, the next thing we'll know is you'll end up on some NGO's homegrown terrorist watch list or something...and give ATS a bad name.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by harrytuttle]

great find and thanks for the hard work and post

reply to post by nenothtu


Your not attacking me because of one reason... but you are attacking me because you are trying to point out that you don't have a clue what the definition of threat is?

You seriously can not see this is a threat?

“Violence…I think we’re missing the point of violence, gentlemen. It’s to send a message, not to simply kill; you can kill any guy on the street, but when a congressman dies, things are bound to be understood and change. The problem as to why violence has not manifested yet is because there is not an obvious, near target; we have Obama and his ilk, but these figureheads are unreachable, and not attackable for obvious reasons. There’s no one else that we know of that is supporting this except the underlings such as Congress and Senate. Theoretically speaking, these would be the people to hit, or possibly those underneath them.” Post by “Sickle_and_Hammer” on Above Top Secret Forums, March 24, 2010.

This guy is talking about "hitting" people of Congress and Senate!

Do you not see this? Am I the only one on ATS who feels this is not appropriate? EVER.

So far, it seems Ive only been attacked by ATS members for wanting this behavior to stop. I guess that means you support it and want it to continue.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Thrice0ne
Wow you ATSers sure know what side you are on.... the criminals side.

Discussing the speculative probabilities of violence occurring in a highly-stressed society such as what is now being witnessed, is not a crime... it's free expression.

Calling someone a criminal, however, is an insult not tolerated under our terms and conditions.

Wise words and I agree with them. Speculation is just that speculative. Calling for or inciting violence is wrong talking about societal problems were it could happen is alright.


It funny how some mix the two separate things up. I have gained alot of respect for you in the past few threads I have read. And I am not sucking up I could care less who likes me but you see things in a grounded way and I respect that.



To all poster do not let yourself get baited and remember that as long as it is peaceful and honest you can always rest easy.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Thrice0ne
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Don't try defending the guy who is quoted saying "sometimes violence is the answer".. you will lose.

Wait you already lost.. you just got caught harboring and defending criminals on your website.


b.t.w. for once I suggest your mods learn how to read ad hominem attacks since you seem to not notice all of the ones thrown at me.


[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

You must always look at context. And you are cherry picking for your pathetic attempt to hurt ATS. You make me sick on several levels.


And to paint with such a large brush only shows one thing you are narrow minded. ATS is not one sided and the owners understand free speech better than most.


Calling for or inciting violence of any kind is wrong. Discussing what could happen in certain situations is alright dont you see that?



Look at this way lets say the banking system crashes and people begin to riot is it alright to talk about what could happen? Do you see how this could be taken out of context.

All you have to do to find the Above top secret part is to open the page, press Ctrl+F and type in above top secret

Originally posted by Thrice0ne
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Don't try defending the guy who is quoted saying "sometimes violence is the answer".. you will lose.

If you're referring to me, the proper quote, found in a post on page 7 of this thread, is:

"Through history, violence has solved a number of things."

Note well that I passed NO judgment on whether said violence was proper or not, or "good" or not. I just said that it had solved a number of things. I did not judge whether these 'things' even needed to be solved, or who deemed that solution necessary, only that a solution was reached, not necessarily a satisfactory one.

Furthermore, not only is it a misquote, it was taken out of context, exactly as was done in the ADL report. You completely ignored the comment following that, which was : "It's probably not the correct answer in this case, but it may come to us all, correct or not."

The statement that "violence may be coming" is a far cry from an INCITEMENT to violence. Far from it, it may well be more in the nature of a "run to the hills to avoid it" call.

You jump to conclusions, and see monsters under the bed which are not there.

Wait you already lost.. you just got caught harboring and defending criminals on your website.

That would be the second time you have made accusations of criminality. I suppose I could let it slide, since you really have no idea of who or what I am, what I've done, or where I've been. Unfortunately, it's a direct accusation of malfeasance against ATS, and response to that it out of my hands.

I submit that you bear the burden of proof for that particular accusation. I'll wait. Your tactics closely follow the ADL form as seen in the report. Do you perhaps work for them, or just sympathize?

b.t.w. for once I suggest your mods learn how to read ad hominem attacks since you seem to not notice all of the ones thrown at me.


[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

I'm guessing that attacking the ability of the mods isn't the quickest way to win a losing battle.

"Ad Hominem ("At the man") attacks would be those directed at YOU, as a person, not your pet theories or ideas. One would think you knew that, taking your own words expressing those notions into consideration.

Reply to post by Thrice0ne

My friend,

I understand that you're afraid. I am afraid too. This is terrifying. It shows the situation we are expected to live in. Restricted speech. Though police. That's where we are headed. I am scared of what is to come. I have no idea how man "lists" I have made. I have no idea what will be done to me should the government decide to redefine what I may have said in the past. I have never made a threat of violence against any individual. I don't make threats like that. But anything I say or could have said may be taken out of context, misconstrued and sold to whomever as a threat. The same goes for you. This report is doing to you exactly what it was intended to do. It is instilling fear. It is stopping you from freely communicating your ideas for fear they will be misconstrued as a threat. A lot of people talk ***t all the time. It doesn't mean that they mean it. Some people may say they want someone dead, but put a gun in their hands and stand the person in front of them and you will see, they cannot, will not and never intended to make good on their threat. It is called "rhetoric". A buzzword in the MSM these days. I'll say it again, this is scary, I am scared. I do understand what you're feeling. Just take a deep breath and realize that you should keep expressing your opinions while you can my friend.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by dbloch7986


I am not afraid of anything, YOU people are afraid. That is why most of everyone is attacking me for caring about people making death threats.

So far, everyone who has attacked me is showing support for death threats. It's sad.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

Originally posted by nenothtu
Your tactics closely follow the ADL form as seen in the report. Do you perhaps work for them, or just sympathize?

Now you are accusing me of working for LEO, like you did a few post ago when you said "they have me".... yet mods don't do anything... nope they will only do something when you are the first crybaby to press ALERT.

Will you stop attacking me?

You would point fingers like a criminal. You afraid? You are afraid of law enforcement officers. You sure are!

Originally posted by Thrice0ne
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Your not attacking me because of one reason... but you are attacking me because you are trying to point out that you don't have a clue what the definition of threat is?

You seriously can not see this is a threat?

“Violence…I think we’re missing the point of violence, gentlemen. It’s to send a message, not to simply kill; you can kill any guy on the street, but when a congressman dies, things are bound to be understood and change. The problem as to why violence has not manifested yet is because there is not an obvious, near target; we have Obama and his ilk, but these figureheads are unreachable, and not attackable for obvious reasons. There’s no one else that we know of that is supporting this except the underlings such as Congress and Senate. Theoretically speaking, these would be the people to hit, or possibly those underneath them.” Post by “Sickle_and_Hammer” on Above Top Secret Forums, March 24, 2010.

This guy is talking about "hitting" people of Congress and Senate!

Do you not see this? Am I the only one on ATS who feels this is not appropriate? EVER.

So far, it seems Ive only been attacked by ATS members for wanting this behavior to stop. I guess that means you support it and want it to continue.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

Nope, no threat there.

A threat, as defined, has elements. If the post had said "I am going to..." it would be a threat. If it said "I think you should...", it would be an incitement to violence. Neither of these requirements is present.

People discuss the presidential assasinations and attempts to this day. There is no threat there. People discuss Che Guevara's theories as expounded in his book " Guerilla Warfare", and yet there is no threat in those discussions, either.

People talk all day long, and quite a lot of it lately, about how the current situation could conceivably lead to violent confrontation, yet there are as yet no roundups from the streets of these alleged "threatening" conversations.

No sir, unless you make the statement that a particular action is definitely GOING to be carried out against a specific target by yourself or someone you have instructed to do so, then no threat exists.

What I want to continue is free and open discussion. Should I encounter any threats, you can bet that they'll be dealt with properly.

Originally posted by Thrice0ne
reply to post by dbloch7986

 

I am not afraid of anything, YOU people are afraid. That is why most of everyone is attacking me for caring about people making death threats.

So far, everyone who has attacked me is showing support for death threats. It's sad.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

I think you might have a screw loose or something no offence but how does disagreeing with you add up to that? I think you are just as bad as the people putting out this report to tell you the truth.



Just because you assume something you run with it as a fact. You have nothing but assumptions and weak arguments.




But let me guess just because I think you have a screw loose I must think violence is alright. Is this how it is in your mind?


I often wondered what kind of people like propaganda like this I think I have my answer. I guess it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

"First they came for the Militia members, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Militia member.

Then they came for the tea-partiers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a tea-partier.

Then they came for the tax protestors,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a tax protester.

Then they came for ATS—
and by that time no one was left to speak up."



[edit on 4/23/10 by silent thunder]

Originally posted by nenothtu

“Violence…I think we’re missing the point of violence, gentlemen. It’s to send a message, not to simply kill; you can kill any guy on the street, but when a congressman dies, things are bound to be understood and change. The problem as to why violence has not manifested yet is because there is not an obvious, near target; we have Obama and his ilk, but these figureheads are unreachable, and not attackable for obvious reasons. There’s no one else that we know of that is supporting this except the underlings such as Congress and Senate. Theoretically speaking, these would be the people to hit, or possibly those underneath them.” Post by “Sickle_and_Hammer” on Above Top Secret Forums, March 24, 2010.

Nope, no threat there.

No threat? Ok since you don't think that is a threat, then I could successfully change the names and it wouldn't matter?

Ok let see how it looks..

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.


You see how much worse that seems? Now, wouldn't you be suspicious of anybody who actually meant the above quote in reality?!

I sure would be.

-note- the change of quote was to prove a point, it does not mean anything else.


[edit on 23-4-2010 by Thrice0ne]

[edit on 4/23/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by silent thunder
"First they came for the Militia members, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Militia member.

Then they came for the tea-partiers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a tea-partier.

Then they came for the tax protestors,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a tax protester.

Then they came for ATS—
and by that time no one was left to speak up."




Thank you for re-posting it. It is honest and I agree with every word of it.



[edit on 4/23/10 by silent thunder]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by Thrice0ne


Is this the whole post so I can rule out any context issues?