Animal activists are terrorists

flywallyfly

Ah, now the terrorist label spreads even further. When will it stop? Can it be stopped?

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3887

sapperskunk

I thought this is old news. Anyway, who gives a shit. They lost me with PETA

http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com

Smellyman2

Does that mean they go to Gitmo w/ no trial or representaion?

flywallyfly

sapperskunk wrote:

I thought this is old news. Anyway, who gives a shit. They lost me with PETA

You should give a shit when those in power decide to brand anything they do not like with the "terrorist" label.

Vedderlution_Baby

Even nonviolent? I don't get it.

I thought the whole point of a terrorist was somebody that used violence to create terror. Am I missing something?

flywallyfly

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Even nonviolent? I don't get it.

I thought the whole point of a terrorist was somebody that used violence to create terror. Am I missing something?

That's my point. The term "terrorist" is being thrown around at many things disliked by the government, be it an act or a point of view. It's ridiculous.

black tattoo

flywallyfly wrote:

Ah, now the terrorist label spreads even further. When will it stop? Can it be stopped?

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3887

Unfortunatley I don't think it can b stopped the media just want to put the fear of whatever god you believe in to scare you into submission.
There is nothing to fear except fear itself. oh and the media. oh and the government.....

black tattoo

sapperskunk wrote:

I thought this is old news. Anyway, who gives a shit. They lost me with PETA

http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com


http://www.petakillsanimals.com

What the ???? peta also lost me when they had a go at Steve irwin 4 days AFTER he died.....
if you are gonna fight for a cause have some balls and some respect. - Peta that is.

chopitdown

"such as blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals – as terrorism"
what's wrong with classifying these as terrorist acts. All of them are clearly illegal...I would have a problem if they made it illegal for PETA or ALF (as much as i disagree with them) to protest. This law just defines what they aren't allowed to do which is good, b/c now people know the consequences.

qtegirl

chopitdown wrote:

"such as blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals – as terrorism"
what's wrong with classifying these as terrorist acts. All of them are clearly illegal...I would have a problem if they made it illegal for PETA or ALF (as much as i disagree with them) to protest. This law just defines what they aren't allowed to do which is good, b/c now people know the consequences.

I had this exact conversation with my husband.

I think all the things that you mention can be classified as criminal acts, but not terrorist acts. There is a huge difference between the two and different laws that govern each.

Most people that do those things are willing to go to jail for their cause. But they are not terrorists. A terrorist uses uses fear and intimidation in order to bring about a desired result. If you set up a blockade or free up captive animals, you are not instilling fear in individuals, you are hurting a corporation's bottom line or profitability.

There is no reason why people who do these acts should be treated as terrorists and have the Patriot Act thrown at them. They should be tried in the court system like any other person who committed a crime.

miller8966

I love when im dragging a deer carcas out of the woods there are some protestors to greet me.

Riot_Rain

"The House passed the Senate’s version of the bill, which was approved in September. Critics consider that version bad enough, but they had been especially alarmed that a House version of the bill swept in "non-violent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise" as an offense if it causes a loss of profits. While the Senate version does not explicitly ban such activity, critics believe it to be vague enough to encompass civil disobedience in its scope.

The AETA does make specific provisions to safeguard activity protected under the First Amendment, but critics have raised concerns it could have the effect of discouraging even lawful protests."

So if I get this right, then peacefully obstructing a shop that sells beauty products that have been tested on animals could be classed as a terrorist act? Just because the shop/company will lose money?

Ouch!

Criminal acts are bad and should be punished. Classifying "blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals" as terrorism, just because you don't agree with the ideology (or because it makes you lose money?) is bad. Very bad.

Smellyman2

chopitdown wrote:

"such as blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals – as terrorism"
what's wrong with classifying these as terrorist acts. All of them are clearly illegal...I would have a problem if they made it illegal for PETA or ALF (as much as i disagree with them) to protest. This law just defines what they aren't allowed to do which is good, b/c now people know the consequences.

Do you tremble w/ fear of freed animals and blockades too? I can hardly sleep at night.

chopitdown

Smellyman wrote:

Do you tremble w/ fear of freed animals and blockades too? I can hardly sleep at night.

nah, thanks to the 2nd amendment i can have a gun to protect myself, if that was taken away from me then i don't think i'd be able to function though.

farfromglorified

People have been calling extreme animal activists "terrorists" for decades, and rightly so in some cases. This is nothing new.

Riot_Rain

farfromglorified wrote:

People have been calling extreme animal activists "terrorists" for decades, and rightly so in some cases. This is nothing new.

Name calling and a prison sentence are two very different things!

Pacomc79

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Even nonviolent? I don't get it.

I thought the whole point of a terrorist was somebody that used violence to create terror. Am I missing something?

you are correct. Terrorists are people who inflict harm on civilians and random every day people in an attempt to "terrorise" them and try and force governments hand in order to get their social or political ideals recognized or forced into being.

The only way an animal activist could be a terrorist would be to say, shoot hunters and say it will continue until they stop hunting.

The only Activists I know that terrorise would be say Abortion Clinic shooters or bombers.

Peta used to throw blood on people but I think they stopped that because it was lame and counter productive.

qtegirl

Riot_Rain wrote:

Name calling and a prison sentence are two very different things!

I agree.

Now that there are all these new laws, wrongfully calling somebody a terrorist carries a lot more weight that it ever did before.

Start using the correct name, activists, or perhaps in some cases, criminals. But we can't throw "terrrorist" around anymore.

jeffbr

eco-terrorists have been around for decades. Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Eddie's buddies at Earth First!. All of them have been rightly considered by most of society to be terrorists. And we've been locking up those fuckers for years. Hopefully we'll continue to. I don't want to see the "terrorist" lable abused, and am anti-Patriot Act. But I also don't want these eco-terrorists called anything else simply because we're afraid to use the term "terrorist".

farfromglorified

Riot_Rain wrote:

Name calling and a prison sentence are two very different things!

Umm....animal activists have been getting prison sentences for a long time too. Not saying it's right, but it's nothing new. What is new is your sensitivity to the word "terrorist".

baraka

It's true that in the past, animal rights groups have exhibited 'terrorist-like' behavior, like mail-bombing veterinarians or researchers. It's no different than the anti-abortionists bombing clinics or threatening doctors. However, trespassing, blockades, etc are forms non-violent civil disobedience. Illegal yes, terrorism,uh, I'm not sure about that. It's interesting to me that this bill would focus on just the animal rights folks, why doesn't it apply to ALL protest groups? I'm also concerned about the implications of this law for ALL protest groups that want to meet and protest legally and peacefully. Why can' there be a law that is clear what constitutes as terrorism instead of a law that focuses on a specific group? The law seems to suspiciously focus on animal rights groups (unless I'm missing something) instead of terrorism itself.