Right-Wing Group Blamed In Leak Of Home Addresses Of ‘DHS-CIA-FBI Traitors’
Source: Reuters
U.S. authorities are investigating the online leak of home addresses of senior officials and former officials from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, CBS News reported on Wednesday.
Investigators believe a right-wing group was behind posting the information, CBS reported, citing unidentified sources.
The Department of Homeland Security confirmed the leak but would not elaborate on who was affected or how many addresses had been leaked.
“DHS has notified employees who were identified in the posting and encouraged them to be vigilant. DHS will adjust security measures, as appropriate, to protect our employees,” said Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/evil-nwo-satanists-right-wing-group-blamed-in-leak-of-home-addresses-of-dhs-cia-fbi-traitors/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
7962
(11,841 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)How did they get the information? Did it break any privacy laws or other laws?
If they broke any laws, THEN arrest them
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)Larry Engels
(387 posts)I'm glad you're not a cop.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)of bank executives, politicians, etc. on a pretty regular basis? Names and addresses of those who support certain political causes and those that have concealed weapons permits have been published in the past.
I don't think any of the above really liked having their personal information published but it was and was no big deal to many so what is the problem here?
blm
(113,061 posts)Left groups don't promote violence against individuals and law enforcement. RW groups expect their followers to plant bombs and point guns at mosques, clinics, law enforcement and individuals.
Where have you been the last 3 decades?
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)blm
(113,061 posts).
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)as well.
My point is that if we are OK with (for example) Prop. 8 supporters personal information being published and/or protestors showing up at bankers homes AS A PROTEST TACTIC, we cannot logically be opposed TO THAT SAME TACTIC being used by others. We certainly can be opposed to why they are using the TACTIC, but not the tactic itself.
blm
(113,061 posts)Let me know what math genius believes there is no difference between 95% of violent political politically-based terrorism from RWers and the aberrations traced to the left.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)That's OK. Just stick to your wrong view. 
blm
(113,061 posts).
Fiendish
(47 posts)What Kelly1mm is trying to say is that it doesn't matter if you put a disclaimer on your posted information. It's still posted information.
If Roger McRightwingerson posts your info on the Web and says "lulz everyone go blow up blm's house," that's really bad. No argument there.
But if Leonard Leftwingypants posts your info on the Web and says, "Now now, no one do anything craaaaaazy with this info," that's... really not any better, is it?
The end result is the same. Your info is still out there on the Interwebs, where any nutcase can see it. If a crazy right-winger burns down your house, or a bored jackwagon with no political concerns at all burns down your house... your house is still burned down, isn't it?
The intent doesn't matter much, because the end result is the same, and the risks to people's safety and property is the same, once the info is out there. Doesn't make a bit of difference who put it out there or why.
blm
(113,061 posts)violence driven by political left ideology are ABERRANT.
That reality keeps managing to escape notice of those who WISH to push the 'no difference' meme.
I'm sure the victim of a violent act as a result of a left-leaning folks using this tactic will feel so much better to know that their pain and/or property loss is "aberrant." I mean, that makes it all okay, right? Not like if it resulted from the tactic being used by some dastardly right-leaning scoundrel.
You can't condemn the tactic when it's used by our opponents, and then blithely okay it when it's used by our side. To do so is hypocritical, and makes our claim to being the "good guys" ring very hollow, indeed.
blm
(113,061 posts)Your views are steeped in the desperate need to claim there is no difference.
Rand2016 deceptions running rampant these days are LOLOLOL. And transparent as hell.
My views aren't steeped in a "desperate need" for anything. I'm pointing out a simple truth: you can't condemn the other side for doing X, and then turn around and do X yourself like it's no big deal.
That is just a simple fact. Your position is essentially hypocrisy. "It's bad when they do it, but it's okay when we do it, because if something bad does happen, we didn't mean for it to happen."
And again, I'm sure that "logic" would be perfectly acceptable to someone whose house was vandalized, for instance. I'm sure they'd nod in understanding and say, "You know what? It's okay that my house was vandalized, because you didn't mean for it to happen."
In the real world, /that/ right there is the BS, dude. Either conduct yourself according to the same standard you set for others, or just... I dunno, carry on acting in a completely hypocritical way.
And what are you babbling about? What in the hell is a Rand2016 deception?
blm
(113,061 posts)RW activists urge VIOLENCE towards their targets. Even senate candidates say they'll need to rely on 'second amendment remedies' and the RW is fine with that. Left activists do not and the events that have been traced to left ideology are so few and far between they are rightfully called ABERRANT.
Do you understand the words common and aberrant?
Do you understand the word defining?
There is no hypocrisy occurring in the statement that violent remedies are a common tactic of the RW activists while violence traced to left ideology is rare. You had to invent the hypocrisy by claiming that which was NOT said.
Rand2016? Gee - whatever could that mean?
See, now you're arguing something completely different.
Nowhere did I say that it is as common for left-wing groups to advocate violence as it is for right-wing groups. You're the one arguing a point that no one else is arguing.
What I'm saying is that given that violence CAN result from the tactic being used, it is completely irrelevant whether it was intended or not. If a left-wing group uses the tactic, violence CAN result, just as much as it might if a right-wing group uses it, even if it is, indeed, MORE likely that violence will result.
Thus, given that the tactic has risks to innocent people and their property, it is inexcusable to use said tactic while claiming to be the "good guys." If a left-wing group uses the tactic, and violence occurs that damages people or property, the fact that the left-wing group didn't intend for the violence to occur means NOTHING. It did occur, and people were hurt and/or property was destroyed. The lack of intent is MEANINGLESS, because everyone knows full well that it's entirely possible that violence can occur.
It is, essentially, akin to firing a gun into the air. You didn't MEAN to hurt anyone, since you didn't shoot AT them, but it's entirely possible, even probable, that someone WILL be hurt. If you doxx someone, and that person is injured by a crazy person, you are STILL RESPONSIBLE for that, even if only indirectly. Your reckless disregard allowed the event to occur, even if you yourself did nothing to harm the person directly.
Thus, it is completely impossible to castigate a right-wing group for doing so, even if they directly advocate violence, while giving a left-wing group a pass, even if they DON'T advocate violence, without being a complete and total hypocrite.
What you fail to understand is that you CANNOT condemn a person for doing something, and then turn around and do it yourself and claim it's perfectly okay. That is, for the umpty-umpth time, hypocritical, and it completely undermines any claim you might make to having the moral high ground.
As for Rand2016, you tell me. That's why I asked you. Or, if you prefer, you can just play games. Whatever floats your boat, dude.
blm
(113,061 posts)Figures.
Fiendish
(47 posts)You're arguing something that I'm not arguing. I made that clear. If you can't grasp that I'm not arguing frequency, but rather that good intentions are meaningless if the action results in a bad outcome... well, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe ask an adult to help you, I dunno.
And if you want to carry on condemning the other side and giving our side a pass for identical behavior, you go right ahead and do that. If it gives you a warm fuzzy and/or helps you sleep at night, go nuts. It's nothing to me. I'm not the one sporting a hypocritical outlook.
Fiendish
(47 posts)You can't condemn the opposition, then turn around and give the same behavior a pass when your side does it. You most certainly can't do so when making a claim to the moral high ground.
blm
(113,061 posts)and, being rare consider it ABERRANT. Violent 'remedies' from RWers are urged and commonplace as a TACTIC, and even embraced by your major GOP candidates.
IMO, you are being deliberately obtuse to avoid the accuracy of the statements being made so, you can argue, instead, with the statement you WISH was said.
Reading comprehension isn't your thing, apparently. Surprise surprise.
I never said anyone on the left is giving violence a pass. Try again.
What I'm arguing (and why on Earth I'm bothering to restate it to you, yet again, I can't imagine, but oh well) is that the TACTIC itself, regardless of intent, is irresponsible because it can result in violence.
Ergo, since the tactic itself is morally suspect, neither side should use it, regardless of what they intend to happen. That is my argument. Not that the left excuses violence, because I know full well that's not the case.
And by the way, "embraced by your major GOP candidates?" They're not my candidates, pal. I'm not a right-winger.
Oh, wait... let me guess. Because I disagree with YOU, that means I'm a right-winger. Because you're a perfect judge, based on a single discussion about a single issue, of where I fall on the political spectrum.
Give me a break. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you're jumping to completely bogus conclusions, though. You certainly can't seem to grasp the substance of my argument, so clearly this whole "logic" thing isn't your strong suit.
blm
(113,061 posts)Republican Senate CANDIDATES even OPENLY advocate '2nd amendment remedies'. No difference to the Rand2016 crowd, eh?
Perhaps you can go back and ask Rand2016 campaign to provide the backup to your claims.
No difference meme strikes again.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)blm
(113,061 posts)that Rand2016 and the Paulbots before them have been employing as a tactic on Democratic sites over the years.
Anyone who pushes the idea there is no difference between RW groups and their tools of terror and left groups must have a reason for being so personally dishonest and publicly deceptive.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)blm
(113,061 posts)encourage the plantings of bombs, lethal ambushes, and outgunning law enforcement.
I will ask again….where have you been the last 30 years?
How did you come to your conclusion that the 95% of violent instances that emerged from RW political groups is no different than the few traced to the left?
Only in RW world does 95 = 5. Rand2016 relies on RW math to spread their deceit.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)95%?
I AGREE with you that there are more violent attacks by right leaning groups.
I am discussing TACTICS here, not motives.
blm
(113,061 posts)And it is illogical to push the no difference meme you are pushing.
It is, actually, deceitful.
7962
(11,841 posts)You forget left wing attacks that have gone on?
the right wing doesnt have a corner on the market of extremism. there are plenty of examples of both sides doing stupid shit
blm
(113,061 posts)Where have you been the last 3 decades?
Rand2016?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)blm
(113,061 posts)Or are you a RW mather - someone who claims there is no difference between 95 and 5?
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)violent acts. I don't think anyone here on DU would disagree with that statement. The post I answered asked to name ONE violent act in the past 40 years committed by left leaning groups, (implying at least that there were none) which I (and others) answered.
Nobody as far as I can see is saying or implying that right leaning groups don't use violence/intimidation. Some here DO seem to be saying that left leaning ones don't use violence/intimidation.
So, I will say it again to be clear. Both left and right leaning groups use violence/intimidation to further their political goals. Right leaning groups use this TACTIC more often than left leaning groups.
blm
(113,061 posts)That is what you refuse to acknowledge.
95 is nowhere near 5.
Look how far back you all had to go. That should have clued you to how off base your position is here.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)the 'Weather Underground'. (The BLA was an off-shoot of the WU.) I had forgotten that the BLA attack occurred in 1981, remembering it as having happened in the mid-70s. So I stand corrected. I should have said "the last 30 years." Sigh. I'm going senile with old age and now must check and double-check everything!
Thanks for the annotation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brink's_robbery_(1981)
snooper2
(30,151 posts)1983 November 7: U.S. Senate bombing. The Armed Resistance Unit, a militant leftist group, bombed the United States Capitol in response to the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
blm
(113,061 posts)But, I do understand that wingers' math means there is no difference between 95 and 5.
Rand2016.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)information about this supposed attack?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Terrorism in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Leftist_militancy
7962
(11,841 posts)More than a dozen attacks on military recruiting offices or recruiters just in the past 10 yrs.
How many environmentalist attacks would you like to list that include attacks on govt offices? There's been dozens of those.
There's the left, and there's the FAR left.
blm
(113,061 posts)Compare them with number of RW violent acts and what do you find?
Far, far more fatalities and violent acts from RW groups you seem to need to protect by pretending there is no difference.
Rand2016Math: 95 = 5.
7962
(11,841 posts)Nowhere did i say attacks were equal, merely that the far left has their fair share of them. And they do.
blm
(113,061 posts)Fair share, my ass.
Only someone politically desperate to insist otherwise would desperately insist otherwise.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)You couldnt handle it. "so we're done". Very mature; you dont like the outcome, so you slam the door.
blm
(113,061 posts)Desperate Randism.
7962
(11,841 posts)But since you're focused on Rand paul for some reason, here you go:
Rand's the man! ALL Dems fear the Paul/Cruz ticket!
If only.....
blm
(113,061 posts)You choose to ignore the ENORMITY of the difference, and certainly choose to ignore the reality of the last 3 decades.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)I guess that's why you limited your claim to "the last 3 decades." But the left was peaceful in the last three decades because (1) there is hardly any left wing in the US anymore, and (2) what remains of the left is so meek and mild that they wouldn't swat a tsetse fly if it bit them in the ass.
blm
(113,061 posts)Sorry you aren't comfortable living in the reality of the present. Political landscape has changed quite a bit in the last 3 decades of Moonie News/FOX propaganda.
There is a huge difference between left group activists and RW group activists that only the 'no difference' crowd wants to gloss over. Rand2016 = FascistAssHole2016.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)Your point is that political violence is a defining quality of the right, and not the left. But the fact is that both sides are capable of it, as history shows. So there isn't anything about being a leftist that makes people less violent.
blm
(113,061 posts)then deceivers can only PRETEND that the aberrant acts traced to the left are defining.
Rand2016 = DesperateDeception.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)You can't follow a logical argument. All you can do is rant and rave.
blm
(113,061 posts)in your world.
LOL at your claim to 'logic' when there is no logic to be found in your argument.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)The statistics say otherwise; that leftists are far less prone to violence than right-wingers.
You should stop promoting this false equivalency.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)"The statistics" from what period? For the past few decades, yes, for reasons I have explained, and will not explain again. But remember the 1960s and 70s? Plenty of leftist violence. More than from the right. That means that non-violence is not a defining feature of leftist politics. To suggest that the left is incapable of violence is a dangerous falsehood, because it makes leftists less likely to police themselves.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)during the era you cite (actually since the end of WWII), from the toppling of democracy in the Middle East and Latin America (with clandestine services organized by NAZIs) to the slaughter of civilians in Korea and Indochina, were most certainly the products of right-wing elements within our government, responsible for a far greater level of death and destruction than any leftist political activism. Your perception of politics and world events, is framed by a strictly limiting narrative, that prevents you from seeing the big picture.
blm
(113,061 posts)Your desperate need to pretend it is belies your agenda. The 'no difference' agenda of Rand2016, aka UtterBullshit.
blm
(113,061 posts)MasturDebaters build straw men so they can have the argument they WANT to have.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)these RW wackos published these docs' home addresses. The subliminal message is go to the home and be an activist, which in the case of abortion docs meant "off them."
blm
(113,061 posts)ANYONE claiming otherwise is full of sh!t and should be deemed a voice of deception…Rand2016 campaign relies heavily on that exact type of deception.
Even Republican CANDIDATES push the idea of violence as an answer, but, the deceit pack needs to pretend there is no difference to pull off their Rand2016 agenda.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I haven't heard of such tactics but I could be wrong, if it is common then you should not have trouble providing a link. thanks in advance.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/03/how-did-people-find-out-that-mozillas-ceo-donated-to-support-prop-8/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/16/class-warfare-hundreds-pr_n_578015.html
and one from right here on DU about publishing info about concealed weapons permit holders:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x333787
There are tons ore if you want to look yourself as well. You were correct though that I should have put them in my original post.
Once again, my comment/question is not about motives as I understand that left and right groups are different in their goals but rather one of tactics. If it is OK to go to the personal home of a banker because you disagree with what the banks are doing it would have to be OK to go to the home of a DHS official if you disagree with what DHS is doing, no? Of course it would (possibly) scare the person who's home it was and any family members, or at the very least make them uncomfortable - which I believe is the point, right?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)the tactic is not entirely new
But would you admit that this puts the current story in a different category:
“LET THESE EVIL NWO SATANISTS KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY FOR THEIR 911 TREASON.”
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)is/was the intent) but do not think it is an actionable threat and is in fact protected speech per Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Likewise, I believe the bankers and their families were frightened by people not only knowing where they lived but actually protesting there (again, which I believe was the intent of the protestors).
blm
(113,061 posts)are way lower than those targeted for harm by RW groups.
95% of politically-based violence and fatalities is from RW ideology. No difference to YOUR crowd, maybe, whose only mission is to claim that there is no difference.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)blm
(113,061 posts)Rand2016.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)right wingers commit more acts of violence, but don't let my actual words as written get in the way of your feelings.
blm
(113,061 posts)and expected violent behavior from RW groups vs the ABERRANT acts from the left. No left GROUP advocates for violence as a remedy, and those few who committed violent acts are aberrations.
Your idea of acknowledgement is to use the word more, and (imo) CAREFULLY avoiding acknowledgement of the SCOPE of the discrepancy.
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)of those who use violence/intimidation as a tactic what their political leanings are, which as you point out and I agree, are much more likely to be right leaning.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)turbinetree
(24,701 posts)Look no further than at the NRA convention held in good old Tennessee, when one hypocrite out of the many that got up on stage and said that Senator Reid should be shot------yes, that RW hypocrite said that Senator Reid should be shot during a question and answer period ,and that individual has been getting away with this crap for a very-very long time, in fact this hypocrite is on the board of the NRA:
Ted Nugent says he wants to shoot Harry Reid during NRA event
I take that has a threat against a sitting U.S. States Senator 
blm
(113,061 posts)Then it's merely another 'second amendment remedy'.
turbinetree
(24,701 posts)they have a person standing with a criminal in Nevada (Cliven Bundy) condoning the acts of individuals pointing guns at federal agents from a bridge
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)intended to incite their extremist 'followers' and give some follower even more nuttier/violent then them- a target, an address.
IMO, quite similar to Palin-'the fox employees' work, the pictures of gov. officials with gun-targets on them.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)JESUS IS LORD, AND THE PUBLIC IS IN CHARGE, NOT THESE SATANIC NWO STOOGES"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-law-officials-personal-information-posted-online-right-wing-group-blamed/
New World Order, Satanist and FEMA camps kind of gave that one away from the start.
ileus
(15,396 posts)