WAR: FBI Goes After the Animal Liberation Front

Well, hell, there's always the possibility that ALF is cooperating with Al-Qaeda. It might sound stupid, and it does, but I've heard of extreme environmentalist groups doing crazier things than this before.

Zip

The problem is, people are still fools who believe AlQuaeda and the Jihad are truly about philosophy, religion, or ideology.

It's about power. Pure, secular power. Look to the money, look who bebefits. Why do the Al Zarqawi's come from the upper echelons of their societies? Why do they never wear the bomb belt? Why do they recruit the young and impressionable and sit back and live high on the hog? Why are there so many groups, claiming the same ideology, but they won't cooperate, share the wealth? Because they each want to be top dog.

Would Al-Quaeda love to assist these "animal rights" freaks? You bet. It's about destabilizing the enemy. The Jihad's masters need America destabilized before we finally get a clue about what's really going on. If our own people (or european) are stupid enough to do their dirty work, even better.

And the addled, aging hippies running these groups, thinking they're different from the sheeple they attack, will buy into the Media's lie about this "religious" and "righteousness" war, and help out those who will kill them in an instant should they become victorious.

It's easy to kill and burn, hard to protect, restore and build. The Jihad needs to destroy it's enemies before it builds, and the fringe groups in Western society will be happy to do the killing and burning, because it's easy and lets them get back to their self important preaching that they use to justify their egos.

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
ALF/PETA tax dollars at work?

Doesn't PETA get grants? Seems like a thread here covered that.

PETA is currently a non-profit organization which does not get taxed on any of their money. Petition to revoke their non-profit status And yes there was a thread covering this issue it was an editorial discussing the dangers of animal right activists and acts of terrorism. Editorial

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Does anyone have any idea as to motive, on the part of the DHS? Certainly this could be a case of rampant stupidity, but I suspect there might be something deeper. Could they have an agenda that would be served by making themselves out to be ridiculous? Is this to make people ignore them? Is it to engender more distrust? Is it to dissuade people from joining ALF? I'm really trying to understand the motivation behind the link they made.

Could it be that the government is just plain desperate to justify the billions of dollars spent restructuring the Intelligence Agencies and come up with ONE "terrorist" threat it can handle?

I do think the ALF/ELF/PETA need to be shut down, but telling us they're on the same level as Al Queda??

Well I agree that is saying they are on the same level is a bit much, but these organizations still pose a great threat to society and should have restrictions placed on them.

Wow, I actually did laugh out loud when I read that line about ALF teaming up with Al Qaeda. Wyrdeone asks why the DHS would connect the two obviously disparate entites. Why? So the War on Terror can target terrorists who target corporations.

The only people on the end of ALF actions (i'd rather refrain from calling them terrorists) are corporations such as McDonalds, cosmetics groups and research institutions that use animal testing. They dont target innocent civilians in the slightest. They take offence at the blatant cruelty being carried out by these corporations and being powerless to use the courts (because they're only animals after all) they have to resort to annoyance tactics. To claim that these people could be used by Al Qaeda to help destroy the Western world is absurd.

So Al Qaeda is meant to give money to these hippies and then they spray paint slogans and smear fake blood over fur coats. Gees, hand me the Patriot Act fellas we need protecting from these savages!

Calling any one a terrorists who fights dirty for a cause is a little presumptuous. What do we call it when a faceless corporation puts out a product that they know will kill millions? Be it aspartame or cigarettes? What do we call it when a corporation pollutes our waterways or air with toxins? What do we call it when every last penny is squeezed out of a society? We call it business. Why cant we refer to it as a form of terrorism? More people die at the hands of corporations than ever have by terrorists: FACT

Its all about who has the money, the corporations can now obviously get any group that hinders them labelled a "terrorist organisation" and have the full brunt of Intelligence Agencies brough to bear on them, for free.

We are controlled by these corporations more than you know and dont put it past them to use scare tactics on us. Work or you wont get money, dont get sick if you dont have money or you'll die.

Linking ALF to Al Qaeda is nothing but a blatant attempt to demonise an animal rights group in the eyes of every day citizens. This is being done so that the full might of American intelligence agencies can focus on these corporate pains-in-the-asses for the benefit of their corporate masters.

Got Dick Cheney?

[edit on 29/4/05 by subz]

What I would like to know is why is this story under the heading of WAR?

Is this supposed to mean that there is currently a war between some Americans and some other Americans?

This is just the wrong place for this, for so many reasons.

It sickens me to see that so many people here state that the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is not a terrorist organization. Have any of you actually done any reading up on this group?

Try it sometime. You'll probably be pretty appauled at the actions and tactics of this group.

Here's a few links to get you started:

www.answers.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.fbi.gov...

www.animalliberationfront.com...

www.animalscam.com...

www.nocompromise.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.consumerfreedom.com...

www.consumerfreedom.com...

www.adl.org...

Need more? Just type "Animal Liberation Front" into Google, and you'll find hundreds of pages of articles like this. These links are from just the first two pages of a Google search.

Links here include the ALF website, the website for "No Compromise" which is an ALF supported newsletter for militant animal rights activists, as well as several governmental and news source links regarding ALF.

Read those, and then tell me if they're not still terrorists.

Finally, if there's any doubt as to the definition of "terrorist," here's the definition from Mirriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

and here's the Cambridge Dictionary's definition of terrorism:

terrorism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
(threats of) violent action for political purposes:
Governments must cooperate if they are to fight/combat international terrorism.
The bomb explosion was one of the worst acts of terrorism that Italy has experienced in recent years.

terrorist [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
Several terrorists have been killed by their own bombs.
There has been an increase in terrorist attacks.
The government has said that it will not be intimidated by terrorist threats.

Please, if you intend to hold a debate, educate yourself on the topic first.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by obsidian468]

WHile I agree that an ALF/Al Queda connection is a stretch, I must say knowing the past history of this group over the last several years would seem to me more than just vandalism. Their radical agenda against animal research, hunting, trapping and even owning a pet has included arson and other crimes throughout the nation. If I recall correctly some of their members have gone to jail over this.

While I can disagree with most of the alleged allegations of various groups the activities of ALF seem taylor made to the Patriot Act / Homeland Security's definintion.

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

That wouldnt be the same systematic use of terror that the Bush administration got a second term with would it? Who didnt vote for the Republican party because they were scared of terrorists?

If ALF can be considered a terrorist organisation then the United States government more than fits the same bill. ALF sets its targets on those whom it sees doing wrong (Axis of Evil), it tries through the courts to resolve the situation but fails (UN) therefore resorts to violent means to get its own way (invasion of afghanistan and iraq). Any one want to show me why a government is above being a terrorist organisation? The Iranians supposedly are one for simply chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Seems they only have to say things to be labelled "Evil". The Bush Co. can actually carry out "Death to the Afghanis" and "Death to the Iraqis" and they are considered saints.

I predicted that not long after the Patriot Act came to pass that the term "terrorist" would be first assigned to domestic corporate hinderances then to political hinderances shortly thereafter. So far 1 of 2. Any one willing to bet I'll get 2 for 2?

[edit on 29/4/05 by subz]

you alf/elf defenders should look up arm, a militant arm of the group, they do attack people...

Not defending ALF, just illustrating that you can construe any violent behaviour as terrorism. What separates wars of aggression by the US government from corporate hinderances such as ALF? Scale? Intended target? Morality?

Just trying to get people to understand that just because the government calls ALF terrorists doesnt necessarily mean they are. If that was the case then terrorism could be squarely leveled at Corporate America (and Worldwide) and the Bush Administration.

Edit: Read up some of the links posted above and my boots are shakin'

The ALF's stated aims are:

1. to liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering;
2. to inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals;
3. to reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations;
4. to take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

Who doesnt agree with that agenda?

One does not 'join' the ALF in the usual manner (e.g. by filling in a form and sending it to a central office). One becomes an ALF activist by taking direct action, and anyone doing so can "claim" the action on behalf of the ALF by passing the details to Robin Webb at the ALF press office, which serves to co-ordinate news of the various ALF actions, as well as issuing statements to the press.

Fancy hijacking ALF and commiting violent crime that directly contradicts the stated aims of the movement? Lets see, who would benefit from such action? ALF from losing their non-violent standpoint? Or corporate America from getting the group listed as a terrorist organisation and henceforth wiped out.

Whats next? The Democrats have taken to blowing up Republican offices? The explosions are there for everyone to behold, some nutcase claims to be working for the Democrats and gets the group labelled a "terrorist organisation" and then wiped out. Seems farfetched now but give it a decade or so and this tactic will be applied where ever necessary to consolidate politcal power.

[edit on 29/4/05 by subz]

I was reading up a bit on ALF and I found this:

from www.shac7.com
The SHAC 7 are animal rights activists indicted under the controversial Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The Act punishes anyone who "physically disrupts" an animal enterprise. The charges stem from these activists' alleged participation in an international campaign to close the notorious product testing lab [link to insideHLS.com].

Specifically, these activists are alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" and face an aggregate of 23 years in Federal Prison.

The SHAC 7 case is the latest in an onslaught of attacks against domestic dissedents under the guise of fighting terrorism. Animal rights is a "fringe" issue and the government is banking on the broader social justice movement to turn a blind eye to those focusing on the “less important” issue of animals and expressing “extremist” views. But make no mistake - these activists are the canaries in the mine. This case is intended to pave the way for further silencing of activists involved in all issues. It is imperative that the broader social justice movement stand behind these activists in our communal defense of free speech, press, and association. Support the SHAC 7 and support your right to free expression!

Apparently they were considered terrorists because they ran a website.

Zip

Oh my God, I have just seen the worst thing of my life.

www.shac7.com...

You need QuickTime to play it.

Zip

Zipdot, I assure you, domestic terrorists like these aren't labelled as such unless they've truly done something to deserve it. The article you posted is from the website of the group accused. Of COURSE they're going to try and make themselves seem like the victim.

Regarding the video link you posted, most medical research facilities are not run like this. Any respectable facility within the United States (I don't know the laws regarding this for other countries) are closely watched for humane treatment of the animals, as well as have more stringent guidelines for the care of the animals than most hospitals do for human patients. There are roughly 6 Federal bodies that regulate how testing and care of animals is performed in these research centers, the USDA and the FDA being two of the better known governing bodies. The bias in your video clip is that it was posted by an organization that supports groups such as PETA and ELF, and want to paint the worst possible picture of these research centers. They are going to edit and narrate the tape to make the viewer think that this is commonplace, rather than the exception. The fact is that animal abuse does occasionally occur in research facilities such as these, but this abuse is highly uncommon, and the offenders can be dealt with through the legal system. Break-ins and firebombing, such as ELF and ALF do, is not necessary to bring these people to justice - for all the good it does, they might as well firebomb the daycare next door, since they have a hamster and the kids constantly poke and prod it.

The reason this thread is in WAR, is because a WAR has been declared against this group, so any conflict that arises out of the FBI actions targetting ALF will be part of the larger WAR effort.

Makes sense now doesn't it? Remember, we're engaged in the war on terror. This group is claimed to be a terrorist organization, and by the accepted definition, they are. That makes this the perfect place to house this thread. In fact, it's the only category applicable.

And yes, ALF destroys property and causes a lot of inconvenience, but as far as I know they've never harmed a soul.

Don't confuse them with ELF, they are totally different organizations as far as I can tell. Of course, there's probably some overlap, as extremists will cluster under whatever banner is appropriate.

And these people are extremists, make no mistake. I don't condone their actions, and I don't share their principles. I like killing and eating animals. So sue me. Anyway, this thread was intended to expose this issue of linking two completely separate and incompatible entities, and identifying the reasons for this.

I'm thinking there's more going on here besides sheer stupidity on the part of the DHS. They can't possibly be that stupid. It's incomprehensible.

It's a tactic, of some kind. I'm just not sure what sort of tactic it is. I can't figure out what they hope to accomplish with this.

How many Americans do we suppose are gullible enough to swallow this hook? My conservative guess would be something like 20%, just to account for all the people with sub-50 IQs. That alone is a scary thought, one I've had the misfortune of dwelling on...

Edit: Phuge - Al Zarqawi wasn't anybody important to my knowledge. He travelled around a lot, he missed the main action in Afghanistan vs. the Russians, he was just an inspiring leader. I think you're mistaking him of UBL, who was high society.

[edit on 30-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by obsidian468
Zipdot, I assure you, domestic terrorists like these aren't labelled as such unless they've truly done something to deserve it. The article you posted is from the website of the group accused. Of COURSE they're going to try and make themselves seem like the victim.

There is no need to assure me of anything, I did not claim that the website was not biased.

Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992
...
"(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

I'm not saying these people aren't guilty of something, but conspiring to cause physical disruption or economic loss is a pretty big umbrella. Under the definition of the law, a website calling out for people to commit acts against an "animal enterprise" entails "conspiracy" and thus makes a terrorist out of a website operator or editorial columnist. Theoretically, anyways.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against such negativity and believe that investigative journalism and prosecution is a far better way to spend one's resources than setting buildings alight.

Regarding the video link you posted, most medical research facilities are not run like this. Any respectable facility within the United States (I don't know the laws regarding this for other countries) are closely watched for humane treatment of the animals, as well as have more stringent guidelines for the care of the animals than most hospitals do for human patients.

If you mean to purport that there is some kind of permanent resident of the facility, working for a regulatory agency, that watches daily operations to ensure conformity to laws and regulations, I can assure you that there is no such thing. Several requirements exist for licensure, and spot checks are performed, but there is no guarantee that animals aren't maltreated. Some may, of course, argue that the very testing of products on animals itself is maltreatment, but I am not inclined to argue about that either way.

The bias in your video clip is that it was posted by an organization that supports groups such as PETA and ELF, and want to paint the worst possible picture of these research centers. They are going to edit and narrate the tape to make the viewer think that this is commonplace, rather than the exception.

I did not comment on the video beyond conveying my disturbedness after watching it. Of course it is narrated by an animal rights activist and whatnot, but as an undercover video, it undeniably portrays acts of extreme abuse towards animals.

for all the good it does, they might as well firebomb the daycare next door, since they have a hamster and the kids constantly poke and prod it.

Some of these activists are, no doubt, extremists.

Zip

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot
If you mean to purport that there is some kind of permanent resident of the facility, working for a regulatory agency, that watches daily operations to ensure conformity to laws and regulations, I can assure you that there is no such thing. Several requirements exist for licensure, and spot checks are performed, but there is no guarantee that animals aren't maltreated.

Typically, there is not a representative of one or more of the governing bodies onsite on a day to day basis (except in Federal research facilities, such as NIH and CDC). Larger firms with a great number of animals are often audited by the government several times a year at random intervals. Smaller research facilities often fly under the radar of the governing bodies, often only being noticed upon reciept of a report filed by a disgruntled employee or by a person(s) touring the facility for business reasons. These smaller firms are still typically audited at least once a year on a random basis.

Some may, of course, argue that the very testing of products on animals itself is maltreatment, but I am not inclined to argue about that either way.

I agree with you that the testing of certain products, such as cosmetics, on animals is a barbarian practice, and shouldn't exist. However, I fully support testing on animals in a medical capacity, or in situations where the technology being tested produces unknown or little known side effects, that may be potentially very harmful to humans.

Should a rabbit have to suffer through having mascara applied directly to its eye? No. Should a lab rat be infected with HIV while testing a possible cure? Yes.

I did not comment on the video beyond conveying my disturbedness after watching it. Of course it is narrated by an animal rights activist and whatnot, but as an undercover video, it undeniably portrays acts of extreme abuse towards animals.

I will agree that the two or three employees protrayed in the video were acting way outside of acceptable limits. However, the video only showed the worst cases of misbehavior by a select few individuals who should have lost their jobs and been subjected to legal action. This does not portray an accurate representation of employees in animal testing facilities in general.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
And yes, ALF destroys property and causes a lot of inconvenience, but as far as I know they've never harmed a soul.
[edit on 30-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]

I'm still sticking by my earlier thread of saying that ALF and it's affiliates are dangerous socio-political terrorist organizations, but saying they are connected to the Al Qaeda is a tad farfetched. Relgious zealot and socio-political terrorists are in leagues of their own, but this doesn't mean that the FBI shouldn't target ALF, SHAC, and PETA as threats.

The definition of terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Intimidation
"I don't think a week's gone by that I haven't heard of a scientist being threatened or intimidated," says Jaqueline Calnan, president of Americans for Medical Progress, a US-based defender of animal research.

Colin Blakemore, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, became a target 12 years ago while using kittens in vision research. A razor package injured his secretary, and his three children required round-the-clock security after kidnapping threats and bomb scares. Blakemore was beaten, his home was vandalised, and demonstrations against him once brought out 200 police in riot gear. He still cannot travel without a police escort.

Do you consider this "not harming a soul"? This man for example still has to have a police escort years later.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The reason this thread is in WAR, is because a WAR has been declared against this group, so any conflict that arises out of the FBI actions targetting ALF will be part of the larger WAR effort.

If this is the case, then the Posse Comitatus Act needs to be reviewed and updated. If this group truly poses a great risk to national security, then the Congress should DECLARE war.

The FBI can use all the rhetoric they want. This is no war. This war is no less similar than our war on drugs, war on poverty, war on illiteracy, and the war on terrorism.

Deeds not words.