4 ms·

Of course they did. Let's ignore for a moment that protest groups (like PETA) are usually considered some of the highest risks for terrorism; it would be irresp

Of course they did. Let's ignore for a moment that protest groups (like PETA) are usually considered some of the highest risks for terrorism; it would be irresponsible of the bureau to take the protest at face value and assume they have completely peaceful intentions.

dalke 14y ago
"irresponsible ... [to] assume they have completely peaceful intentions" Who is the "they" here? Protest groups in general? Or just PETA? You seem to be painting all protest groups with a single color. There are oodles of protests groups in the US, ranging from anti-red-light-camera groups, anti-computerized-voting-machines and anti-waste-in-local-government to anti-abortion and anti-pot-prohibition to boycott-Israel, anti-nuke, and anti-anyone-who-isn't-white. Some of these have national scope. Are all of them in the highest risk for terrorism? Assuming there were enough resources, would it be irresponsible for the police if there were a few protest groups which they did not monitor and/or infiltrate? If the police hear of a group planning to protest the high sugar tariff, with organized demonstrations in DC, Hawaii, and Florida, should they monitor the group on the assumption that it's "one of the highest risks for terrorism"?
neumann_alfred 14y ago
It's people actually peacefully protesting injustice and corruption that scare the powers that be. A bunch of rowdies can be arrested or shot easily and to the relief of many. Old and young people singing songs and what not, that's much trickier. Ever read War Is a Racket? What makes you think Wall Street has peaceful intentions? What makes you think Wall Street doesn't cause a lot of death? What makes you think it's reasonably to project that evil on those who protest it? No wait; do you think, at all? Your bit about "the highest risks for terrorism" makes me wonder. Also, why bring up PETA? Why not bring up all the wonderful people who protest a lot of evil shit and make the world better; there is no day without that happening. You make it seem like all protest groups are out to destroy, which makes it rather obvious you wish they were. Would make it seem less crappy to, you know, not be out there protesting. Since protesters are potential terrorists (not my words, that's what you basically said), people who just sit at home are basically like the firefighters of 9/11 and the armed forces combined, but with a healthier lifestyle and pets 'n shit. Yes, I'm at the border of flamebaiting, mod me down. This self-righteous stating if BS ("are usually considered some of the highest risks for terrorism" -- by whom? that's like "some people say", the staple of any hit piece) really really ticks me off. And I'm not even American, I'd be breathing fire otherwise.
- derekerdmann 14y ago
  > "No wait; do you think, at all?" Frankly, I'm offended and disappointed that you've decided to turn this into a pointless personal attack. You already know you're being rude and belligerent, so moderate yourself instead of throwing out a condescending rant. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism for a few groups that the FBI has historically monitored (PETA IS on that list). Given that all of these organizations have been accused of actions that endanger the safety and property of other American citizens, the FBI isn't doing its job if it doesn't monitor them. The Occupy movement could easily have spawned destructive or violent protests, and being unprepared would have been irresponsible of the Bureau.

dalke 14y ago

"irresponsible ... [to] assume they have completely peaceful intentions" Who is the "they" here? Protest groups in general? Or just PETA? You seem to be painting all protest groups with a single color. There are oodles of protests groups in the US, ranging from anti-red-light-camera groups, anti-computerized-voting-machines and anti-waste-in-local-government to anti-abortion and anti-pot-prohibition to boycott-Israel, anti-nuke, and anti-anyone-who-isn't-white. Some of these have national scope. Are all of them in the highest risk for terrorism? Assuming there were enough resources, would it be irresponsible for the police if there were a few protest groups which they did not monitor and/or infiltrate? If the police hear of a group planning to protest the high sugar tariff, with organized demonstrations in DC, Hawaii, and Florida, should they monitor the group on the assumption that it's "one of the highest risks for terrorism"?

neumann_alfred 14y ago

It's people actually peacefully protesting injustice and corruption that scare the powers that be. A bunch of rowdies can be arrested or shot easily and to the relief of many. Old and young people singing songs and what not, that's much trickier. Ever read War Is a Racket? What makes you think Wall Street has peaceful intentions? What makes you think Wall Street doesn't cause a lot of death? What makes you think it's reasonably to project that evil on those who protest it? No wait; do you think, at all? Your bit about "the highest risks for terrorism" makes me wonder. Also, why bring up PETA? Why not bring up all the wonderful people who protest a lot of evil shit and make the world better; there is no day without that happening. You make it seem like all protest groups are out to destroy, which makes it rather obvious you wish they were. Would make it seem less crappy to, you know, not be out there protesting. Since protesters are potential terrorists (not my words, that's what you basically said), people who just sit at home are basically like the firefighters of 9/11 and the armed forces combined, but with a healthier lifestyle and pets 'n shit. Yes, I'm at the border of flamebaiting, mod me down. This self-righteous stating if BS ("are usually considered some of the highest risks for terrorism" -- by whom? that's like "some people say", the staple of any hit piece) really really ticks me off. And I'm not even American, I'd be breathing fire otherwise.

derekerdmann 14y ago
> "No wait; do you think, at all?" Frankly, I'm offended and disappointed that you've decided to turn this into a pointless personal attack. You already know you're being rude and belligerent, so moderate yourself instead of throwing out a condescending rant. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism for a few groups that the FBI has historically monitored (PETA IS on that list). Given that all of these organizations have been accused of actions that endanger the safety and property of other American citizens, the FBI isn't doing its job if it doesn't monitor them. The Occupy movement could easily have spawned destructive or violent protests, and being unprepared would have been irresponsible of the Bureau.