|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Oct 25, 2010 17:48:05 GMT -5
That actually seems like an exception to what they usually do, which is bust animals out of labs and such. But like I said before, the official rule of the ALF is that any action for animal rights that doesn't harm animals or human beings can be claimed as an ALF action. Naturally with a movement without a definite structure to it this sort of thing can happen.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 17:52:19 GMT -5
Booley, ummm, you do realise terrorist 'tactics' vary right? Just because one group targets primarily people and the other doesn't, still doesn't diminish the fact that both are done to coerce and intimidate for 'ideological and political' reasons. Good point. But again it's a matter of level. One simply does not rise to the level of the other. And again, since terrorism must inspire terror (in my book anyway) then property damage must still carry the message (implied or explicit) that bodily harm is next. But ALF and ELF aren't taking it o that next logical step. They even seem to try to avoid it. And considering much of the property is often insured, I am not even sure they are all that coercive. So as terrorists go, ELF and ALF such. Except that if the researchers fail to be intimidated, what then? There's no evidence that the researchers themselves would be in danger, just their research and property. Which brings up another problem, often the intent is not to intimidate someone, even if that may be a consequence. To their way of thinking, every animal taken out of a lab is an animal that cant' be experimented on. Every SUV burned is an SUV that wont' be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And when research is burned, it's much less likely that money for that research will be as forthcoming, not because of intimidation but simple economics. In short they are saboteurs. But they still are not the threat that they have been presented. And calling them terrorists in this day and age only clouds the issue. Not at all since even actual terrorists can also engage in civil disobedience. Civil disobedience just means you disobey the law as a form of protest. It's usually non-violent (And a case can be made that it's more effective that way) But it can be violent and still fit the definition. But if someone took out a monument (and I have no idea how one could do so without harming anyone) there would be the still clear implication that people could and probably would be next. Property cant' feel fear. You cant' terrorize property. You can terrorize it's owner. But there has to be that extra threat. Historically there's just not any reason to believe that ELF and ALF i is going to target anyone. And again my point is that these groups are not the threat they are made out to be and certainly on the level that clinic bombers and al queda are.
|
|
|
Post by DrKilljoy on Oct 25, 2010 17:58:22 GMT -5
That actually seems like an exception to what they usually do, which is bust animals out of labs and such. But like I said before, the official rule of the ALF is that any action for animal rights that doesn't harm animals or human beings can be claimed as an ALF action. Naturally with a movement without a definite structure to it this sort of thing can happen. Isn't that basically a blank check to hurt or kill as many people as they want and claim nonviolence, because "it wasn't an ALF action?"
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 25, 2010 18:00:31 GMT -5
booley, seriously. Terrorism needs not even the hint of a threat of harm to people. It is entirely a non-issue. The point is to cause fear.
Even if that fear is just "they'll burn the research center again if we keep doing animal testing", which is the point of burning it in the first place, it is still terrorism. They are using violence and destruction to further their political goals. In other words, terrorism.
A terrorist isn't just a brown guy with a turban and a corset made of dynamite.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 18:01:16 GMT -5
That actually seems like an exception to what they usually do, which is bust animals out of labs and such. But like I said before, the official rule of the ALF is that any action for animal rights that doesn't harm animals or human beings can be claimed as an ALF action. Naturally with a movement without a definite structure to it this sort of thing can happen. Which is another good point. ALF has no centralized control. It's various cels and people claiming to be ALF that may have no real connection to the actual body. And apparently members within that group can disagree wildly over what their tactics should be. So how can we say "ALF is a terrorist group" when we can't even be sure what actions are representative? With say abortion attackers, we have an ideological frame work that justifies violence against persons as acceptable. Same with the IRA and AL Queda and the Tamil Tigers. But there doesn't appear to be the case for ALF. And is just me or are we heading further and further away from PETA? BTW, if anyone is confused, I am not defending ALF or ELF or even PETA for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 18:04:20 GMT -5
.... Isn't that basically a blank check to hurt or kill as many people as they want and claim nonviolence, because "it wasn't an ALF action?" Except ARE THEY? Are they hurting/ killing as many people as possible? Again it's about the pattern. I can show you the pattern of attacks against abortion clinics. We have a clear pattern of groups like AL Queda attacking Westerners. IF ALF was using this as rationalization to attack people, then their should be more then one attack under their banner, even if others in the group disavow it.
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Oct 25, 2010 18:05:08 GMT -5
Never liked PETA, they seem to have good intentions they just go about the WRONG way. The killing of 97% of the animals they resuce makes me want to vomit, you know there are many resuce groups that get all or most of the animals adopted, so I really think that PETA doesn't even want to try. Their support for BSL(Breed Specific Legislation) makes my blood boil, Pit Bulls and other bully breeds aren't the fucking problem, its the morons who train the dogs to attack, fight and whatever are the fucking problem. Shit, if Bichons looked like they could be mean, they would use them.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 18:10:42 GMT -5
booley, seriously. Terrorism needs not even the hint of a threat of harm to people. It is entirely a non-issue. The point is to cause fear. Except what are you supposed to be afraid of? While I would be incredibly upset if someone torched my car, if I had no reason to believe that my life was in danger, it just wouldnt' rise to the level then if I did think my life was in danger. There's a whole section of your brain devoted to making you fear for your life. Terror is a pretty intense form of fear. But not to the level of terrorizing a population. Animal testing is still going on, you can drive by any number of SUV dealerships. Most of the threat that these groups represent can be dealt with in the same manner that grafitti artists are. No one is saying it was so that's a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Oct 25, 2010 18:12:40 GMT -5
Never liked PETA, they seem to have good intentions they just go about the WRONG way. The killing of 97% of the animals they resuce makes me want to vomit, .... Just curious, where are you getting that figure? And how do you know that most of the animals they euthanize could have been adopted elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 25, 2010 18:13:51 GMT -5
Booley. You're being rather irrational about this.
The reason I mentioned the Penn and Tiller video was that they showed the video of the arson in a classroom literally teaching kids how to make a molotov cocktail, explaining how it works, and such.
It's hard to take something out of context when it is its own context. Nice job ignoring the rest of my post, by the way, the part that actually proved the man was a dangerous arsonist, unabashed, and in no way misrepresented.
Furthermore, the poster at the beginning of the topic provided many sources. Those should be enough for you.
There is no "other side" to the story. PETA supports terrorism in the name of saving animals. And they flat-out admit it in interviews, as Penn and Tiller demonstrated.
They tell blatant lies about ANIMAL SHELTERS, accusing them of being killers for euthanizing animas out of necessity, while they turn a blind eye to the fact that PETA euthanizes FAR more animals.
As far as the 97% figure, look at the fucking poster in the very first fucking post that fucking uses fucking sources!
|
|
|
Post by DrKilljoy on Oct 25, 2010 18:14:24 GMT -5
All that proves is they aren't meeting their goals.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 25, 2010 18:16:15 GMT -5
Good point. But again it's a matter of level. One simply does not rise to the level of the other. It isn't about 'level' since both are still classed as terrorism by definition. You can't sidestep that without a major redefinition of terrorism. And again, since terrorism must inspire terror (in my book anyway) then property damage must still carry the message (implied or explicit) that bodily harm is next. See DrKillJoy's post.. Also, property damage can still disturb people, particularly those who had to work in the property. For all they know, it could have happened whilst they were still working. It is the action that intimidates, albeit indirectly. But ALF and ELF aren't taking it o that next logical step. They even seem to try to avoid it. But they still did. Even if they avoid it as a general rule, they still sometimes go beyond that. And considering much of the property is often insured, I am not even sure they are all that coercive. Are you trying to paint the acts as minor inconveniences? Really? Except that if the researchers fail to be intimidated, what then? There's no evidence that the researchers themselves would be in danger, just their research and property. But it isn't about real threat, it is about perceived threat. That's how terrorism works. Whether they will really go for the researchers isn't the issue, it is the 'threat' that if they continue, it could get worse. After all, a burnt down lab today, could be the researcher's car next or house even. Even if it doesn't happen, the threat perceived is still there. You can't dismiss/hand-wave it away due to the motivations of the attacks. Which brings up another problem, often the intent is not to intimidate someone, even if that may be a consequence. But they don't just stop at labs, they also go for personal property. How is that NOT an act of intimidation? To their way of thinking, every animal taken out of a lab is an animal that cant' be experimented on. Every SUV burned is an SUV that wont' be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. But it is also a message to the researcher involved that they know who they are and what is their property, and that they are willing to destroy it to get at *them*. Indirect intimidation at its finest. And when research is burned, it's much less likely that money for that research will be as forthcoming, not because of intimidation but simple economics. Attempt to influence the research in such a way as to halt it, motivated by their ideological convictions. Terrorism 101. In short they are saboteurs. But they still are not the threat that they have been presented. And calling them terrorists in this day and age only clouds the issue. But they do more than just sabotage. It isn't clouding the issue because one is still calling a spanner a spanner. Not at all since even actual terrorists can also engage in civil disobedience. Civil disobedience just means you disobey the law as a form of protest. It's usually non-violent (And a case can be made that it's more effective that way) But it can be violent and still fit the definition. But the fact is to intimidate a specific group of people for ideological/political reasons, not to dispute government powers/laws/etc, separates it from mere civil disobedience. But if someone took out a monument (and I have no idea how one could do so without harming anyone) there would be the still clear implication that people could and probably would be next. Without harming someone is easy, the ALF/ELF people do it all the time to those labs, remember? Also, the implication is 'perceived', not clear. After all, you may not even need to do a follow-up attack as long as you've generated enough fear. Property cant' feel fear. You cant' terrorize property. You can terrorize it's owner. But there has to be that extra threat. The act of destroying the property for a particular ideological reason *is* the threat. The threat is *perceived* by the people that are/were involved with the property. Historically there's just not any reason to believe that ELF and ALF i is going to target anyone. And again my point is that these groups are not the threat they are made out to be and certainly on the level that clinic bombers and al queda are. See DrKilljoy's post please.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 25, 2010 18:18:16 GMT -5
I love how you totally skip over the part where I talk about what these people are trying to make you afraid of. And then you keep claiming they aren't really terrorists, because they're not on the scale of other terrorists.
But I'll tell ya what. It takes a lot longer to rebuild a torched research facility than to repaint a wall, during which the facility can't operate. Someone with an SUV, especially if it was bought used, may not be able to afford insurance good enough to completely replace it.
Just because they aren't actively trying to kill doesn't mean they aren't causing real and serious harm to people. And you can damn well bet the people effected by it are afraid of it happening again. Just because you aren't threatened by it since it's happening to someone else and is unlikely ever to affect you doesn't make it anything short of terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 25, 2010 18:50:07 GMT -5
But I'll tell ya what. It takes a lot longer to rebuild a torched research facility than to repaint a wall, during which the facility can't operate. Someone with an SUV, especially if it was bought used, may not be able to afford insurance good enough to completely replace it. I don't know about the other people here, but if my workplace was burnt down, I'd be in deep shit. I kind of need an income. I think being afraid that I wouldn't be able to pay bills and rent is a legitimate fear and one that groups like ELF and ALF cause. Also, I kind of wonder how they ensure that nobody is in the building when they torch it. Some people work very odd hours and there's always overtime. Even if they don't intend to burn people doesn't mean it can't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Oct 25, 2010 18:50:24 GMT -5
Never liked PETA, they seem to have good intentions they just go about the WRONG way. The killing of 97% of the animals they resuce makes me want to vomit, .... Just curious, where are you getting that figure? And how do you know that most of the animals they euthanize could have been adopted elsewhere? PETA themselves have stated quite publicly that they aren't an adoption agency. Because of that, they "have" to euthanize a significant population of the animals in their shelters.
|
|