Get your definitions straight.

Some day, once all the brain-washed folks like you have finally been washed down the drain-hole of history, those who stood up to the death-dealer’s in defense of life will be rightly seen as heroes. Until then your masters do have the upper hand, as your faithfully parroting their propaganda shows.

And intereting that quelling free speech is what you expected to happen to you. Nope, just our government and big corporations do that.

You focused on one paragraph out of a six page document. I suppose anyone can pull something out of context and sensationalize it, while ignoring the validity of the document itself. It’s a sloppy, unethical journalistic technique which may help seek employment at a cheesy tabloid magazine.

The paper was specifically focused on corporate security counter-measures and was not meant to be an all-inclusive document addressing the eco-terrorist threat. It had a specific intent which was explained in the title.

The violent nature of eco-terrorism is considered common knowledge to the audience for which this document was intended. Of course, since you only have access to a very small sampling of information from DHS, how could you possibly know that? But then again, you don’t really care about the truth - except the “truth” as you see it.

You said that DHS has yet to send out a warning (regarding other threats). Again, since you don’t have access - and are not authorized to receive that information- you can’t really validate your statement. Just because YOU don’t get to see those documents doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It just means your “source” chose not to make those records public.