It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TA-ORGANIZATIONS: Violence escalates involving animal right's activism

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Violence has arrived on the East Coast in the form of ALF and SHAC supporters. Most of the violent actions taken against medical researchers who perform animal testing happened in Europe. However, they have now rooted themselves on the east coast and are hacking into people's personal accounts, vandalizing, and terrorizing families of pharmaceutical companies.
Washington Post
Founded in England in the 1970s, the ALF took root in the American West a decade later, the FBI said. The organization gained notoriety for its "animal liberation" actions in which activists broke into university and biomedical labs to rescue rabbits and mice. In the past decade, ALF activists spread to the East Coast, with their activity growing against the biomedical industry, which often relies on testing animals.

It was the latest in a series of attacks by the Animal Liberation Front on the Long Island family. The activists, who have asserted responsibility, once scrawled "Puppy Killer" in red paint on the executive's house and have posted the couple's phone, license plate and bank account numbers on the Internet, along with this threat: "If we find a dime of that money granted to those charities was taken back, we will strip you bare."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Their numbers are increasing and so is the violent nature of animal activists. PETA may not commit acts of violence directly, but are indirectly responsible as well by providing these other groups with funding. ALF is not just located in Europe any longer and are a growing threat to the science community everywhere. Is it any wonder why the FBI put these organizations on their terrorist list?

It is one thing to freely express your viewpoints through non-violent protesting but a whole other ball of wax to violate someone's home, car, bank account, and peace of mind.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by deadlynightshade]




posted on May, 9 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Well, we can only hope that the FBI actually does something about these people. Their attacks have gone on long enough.

It's debatable as to how much of a threat that Al Qaeda really is, but it's highly evident the kind of threat that PETA, ALF, and ELF are.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I watch this stuff on the news and just cringe. Have you noticed it seems like people care more for animals rights than they do people. Look at all the negelected kids and homeless people. Too bad the animal right activists don't stand up for them more.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
MauiStacy -

That's just the point. These organizations don't care about human rights. PETA officials (including their president, Ingrid Newkirk) have stated many things denying human rights for what they think are animal rights. Ingrid Newkirk herself has stated that she doesn't want a cure for AIDS if it means testing on animals. For more information on PETA and the wrongs they have advocated against mankind, refer to this thread.

These groups have no problems with harming humans to accomplish their goals.

ALF once "liberated" several AIDS infected chimps from a research facility, and allowed them to roam loose in the surrounding town. The film "28 Days Later" depicts ALF members loosing the "rage virus" on the world (though it's never actually stated as being ALF in the film, that was in influence for the animal rights group in the beginning of the film).

Groups such as these would rather kill humans than try to establish a friendly cohabitation between animals and people. They are unwilling to see the value of animals to humans. Even outside of vegetarianism, animals still provide great value to humans through companionship, medical testing, etc. I suppose they'd prefer us to infect kids and handicapped humans with AIDS (and other such diseases) to test possible cures, rather than mice, rats, and other animals. PETA also demands that people not keep pets, because it is abusive to the animal. Tell that to my dog, who was found on the streets at 9 months old, pregnant and emaciated, on the verge of death, and say, You should have died, because keep you is unfair to you (by the way, she's now 4 years old, healthy and happy - because of human intervention).

These groups are terrorists, pure and simple.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I have to agree and I think that if the government would take away PETA's 501(c) status would be like cutting off their supply of money. I am not saying for sure it would work, but it would be a good start.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
The responses to this news item seem pretty much of similar mind. Understandable as the activist group's deeds are CRAZY

However, it would be interesting to hear some other "PETA-friendly "opinions on this topic.

In the meantime, I'll be gnawing on a side of beef.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Rebuttal ?

The responses to this news item seem pretty much of similar mind. Understandable as the activist group's deeds are CRAZY

However, it would be interesting to hear some other "PETA-friendly "opinions on this topic.

In the meantime, I'll be gnawing on a side of beef.


Do not hold your breath while waiting for a rebuttal


If some of PETAs supporters did, I am sure they would get eaten alive



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

MauiStacey
I watch this stuff on the news and just cringe. Have you noticed it seems like people care more for animals rights than they do people. Look at all the negelected kids and homeless people. Too bad the animal right activists don't stand up for them more.

The whole point of animal rights activism is to call attention to the suffering of animals.
Until recently, scientists thought that fish couldn't perceive pain, because they didn't have some kind of brain structures that were supposed to be necessary. But now, better investigation has show otherwise:
news.bbc.co.uk...

If fish do feel pain, all kinds of animals do also, from insects to, as you said, homeless people.
If you take this fact into consideration, and relate it to the way human beings treat other species on their planet, you will be faced with a spectacle of hellish proportions.

Now, some people can go most of their lives without seeing it, or only sensing in a dim way. From the moment we accept that we can use dead animals as food, nothing is to stop us from treating human beings as raw objects to be "consumed" and "disposed of". This connection is easily hidden from view with affirmations like some "people care more for animals rights than they do about people". The point is, pain is universal.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
they are indeed scary peaople. i have even had a couple tell me that all humans should be wiped out so that animal life can be restored to it's propper place.

someone sure said it these guys are true terrorists where there is some arguement about bin ladden most seem to agree that these people definately are. threatening that their stolen money not be taken back OR ELSE. wow. perhape those "pet" cahrities should have their books looked at. chances are they have done this before.

they are also rather weird. i mean how can a human put all animals before all humans? like ok tortureing an animal for fun is bad but trying to save many is worth it. i still don't like it but i can't say it isn't done with good intent. hmm if they want to protect animals so much, perhapse they would VOLENTEER to take lab animal's places? mabe even let themselves be used to look for cures for animal malidies.

i never realized that fish wer'nt suppost to feel pail
. i always thought that they did. i have a suspician that if realy looked into that plant life also feels pain. guess all creatures should just starve. oh thats right they don't have a problem with animals eating animals, just with humans eating animals.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Drogo
they are also rather weird. i mean how can a human put all animals before all humans? like ok tortureing an animal for fun is bad but trying to save many is worth it. i still don't like it but i can't say it isn't done with good intent. hmm if they want to protect animals so much, perhapse they would VOLENTEER to take lab animal's places? mabe even let themselves be used to look for cures for animal malidies.


Humans already enjoy the protective instincts of their own kind. This is the only positive side-effect of speciesism.
Animals are strongly bound to their behaviors, predators are driven to kill by instinct. People who take care of dangerous animals can never be sure and safe, because at any moment the animals can revert to violent behavior. Conversely, some animals sometimes show caring instincts that are almost human-like. Animals are capable of a wide range of behaviors.
In the same way, human behaviors cover all this animal range and much more. So, yes, there might be a few people that would sacrifice themselves instead of laboratory animals.

Remember that not all laboratory investigation is to cure diseases. Animals are also abused to investigate cosmetics, chemicals and foodstuff. If we want to abandon these gruesome and primitive habits, we have to start somewhere. In a sense, all the suffering of animals deserves our attention. But we are not radicals and we know how difficult it is to dismantle your way of life. You react as if something valuable is being taken from you. This isn't surprising, because you didn't have a choice in the way you were born.

But we are making improvements every day. Animal cruelty is not well seen in many countries, included some religious forms of killing are increasingly seen for what they are. The next step will be to ban some industrial meat production methods and all animal experimentation.
The final goal is, of course, to make the ownership and consumption of animals a crime. Personally, I don't know if this is possible. Perhaps we could treat this regressive behavior more tolerantly, as a life-choice, and in order not to expose children, establish special natural preserves for people who wish to engage in violence.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
The whole point of animal rights activism is to call attention to the suffering of animals. .


theyre animals, humans come first, if people prefer beating, terrorising and letter bombing humans to protect them, well they deserve to have their groups crushed like any other terrorist group, terrorism is terrorism, its not right to use it to get attention.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
[
The final goal is, of course, to make the ownership and consumption of animals a crime.


Your reasoning behind this would be what? Many animals wouldn't be able to survive without humans. Ever heard of domestication? Many domestic animals wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. If you managed to ban the ownership of animals, you'd be killing more animals than would die through farming and testing. Real humane, huh?

Also, if owning animals is so wrong, then why has my dog only survived through human intervention and the companionship of good people? She was found on the streets at nine months old, pregnant and emaciated and on the verge of death (from trying to live wild), and only after human intervention was it possible for her to have the life she has now.... she's currently 4 years old, and thrilled to be here. She often has opportunity to leave (she runs loose often), but as yet has never done so. Is this wrong? Is this abuse? Is this inhumane? No. It's not, and you know it. Most people that own animals view them more as companions and friends (and often even as children) moreso than as owned property. The animals are often far happier with people than they would be trying to survive on their own. With people, these animals that have feelings, feel pain, etc, know that they have food when they want it, get all the love they desire, and live healthy, happy, and stimulating lives. In addition to that, animals have been proven to be great company for the elderly, disabled, and terminally lonely. The love and affection of an animal has been proven to have great benefit for both people and animals. This is not wrong. This is mutually beneficial cohabitation, just as nature intended.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I think using the word violence is a stretch. It could be taken to mean intense, but that's definitely not the connotation. These people break the law, but calling them violent for defacing property and stealing from parked cars takes the word violent to a lower level. There's more on this thread I started about ALF and the FBI saying they might work with Al-Qaeda.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Isn't that just the silliest thing? I mean..what a stretch of logic that would be. Unless of course, the Islamic Extremists don't actually want to destroy the west, as some have said. Maybe their real agenda is to liberate all tigers from captivity, or something, and we've just been lied to.

Well, we've definitely been lied to, but I'll leave it up to individuals to decipher who lied, when, about what.


Assurances abound, there are lies in the air.

Edit to include this:
Starn Breather
Wait, lemme understand... You think the people who want to hunt for their meals should be in reservations, or the animals they wish to hunt should be in reservations. I wasn't real clear on the wording and, obviously, it makes a big difference how you word it.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 9-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
These people are terrorists. Round them up. Try them. Convict them. Kill them. That should send a loud enough message that we won't tolerate such activity here.
If they actually nail these people, the liberals will be in the streets demanding their release.

[edit on 05/5/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather

Remember that not all laboratory investigation is to cure diseases. Animals are also abused to investigate cosmetics, chemicals and foodstuff. If we want to abandon these gruesome and primitive habits, we have to start somewhere. In a sense, all the suffering of animals deserves our attention. But we are not radicals and we know how difficult it is to dismantle your way of life. You react as if something valuable is being taken from you. This isn't surprising, because you didn't have a choice in the way you were born.


i know that all animal experimenting is not about disese. but even other investigations are valid. cosmetics, and chemical testing for one. i realy don't like the thought of what suffering animals go through for our benifit. fact is that it is a good thing.much better than finding out later about some unfreseen problems. they may be grusum as you put it but i am sure that they do try to be as humain as they can be under the circumstances. heck natzi's used jews in the same way. even though most found it repulsive the fact remains that many things were learned from it. it was a horrendous thing to do but at least some small good came of it. at least their lives were not totaly wasted.the same goes for animal testing, it may not be nice but it saves humans in the long run. so it is a good thing. though we must try to insure that suffering is kept as minimal as possible.


But we are making improvements every day. Animal cruelty is not well seen in many countries, included some religious forms of killing are increasingly seen for what they are. The next step will be to ban some industrial meat production methods and all animal experimentation.


i will agree that animals should have the room to move and that too much chemicals are used for the production of meat animals. and that does need to be changed. can't speak for religious killings as i don't know about any. but then again if they are a part of religion then we should leave well enough alone. as for banning all animal experimentation. that would be wrong as it would just cause more human suffering. not to mention the testing of medications to make sure or at least as sure as possible that there will not be any side effects that are worse than what they will cure.


The final goal is, of course, to make the ownership and consumption of animals a crime. Personally, I don't know if this is possible. Perhaps we could treat this regressive behavior more tolerantly, as a life-choice, and in order not to expose children, establish special natural preserves for people who wish to engage in violence.


what is wrong with haveing pets? heck cats and dogs especialy do not have any part in natural survival. they have been bread exclusively to be a part of human society. they are not realy "natural" creatures. what will you do kill them off? a fair number would never make it without humans.

also what is wrong with eating meat? do you also hold that animals should not eat meat? because if you don't you are being a hypocrit. humans were not made to live on vegies alone. sure some humans eat only veggies, that is their personal choice it is as wrong to force that on people as it would be for me to force a vegan to eat meat. i will also remind you that eating only veggies is a bit of a risk, you have to be verry carefull to make sure that you eat enough certain things to get the propper nutriants that are needed.

perhaps in order to not expose children to such regressive behaviour we should establish special preservers for people who are so self indulgiant as to think that people should not eat meat. it is fine if you think that way it means more meat for the rest of us. but why so insistant on forceing this warped view on others? humans are meant to eat meat. if you wish not to indulge in this natural behaviour then feel free to it is YOUR choice. just do not presume to forceyour warped views on everyone else.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
That's horrible Grady!

Unless of course it applies to all terrorists, and then I'm behind you 100%.

Domestic terrorism, international terrorism, they are blights on the world, truly.

And you know something else, it just so happens that the US Government, and their well known Black Budget, is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It puts all the others to shame. Will they be next appetizer on your menu? Please say yes. How about the IRS, the DEA, they use terroristic tactics in imposing their will...

If you want to be draconian, apply it laterally Grady, spread it around to all deserving parties. Otherwise, I will dub thee tyrant, just another man trying to break the wills of his fellow men to usher in his own brand of paradise. If you act like a tyrant, it gives others free liscense to do so, in competition with you, understand?

Change the playing field, by all means, level it out. Let's have a real game.

Is that what you want, to see all men held to the same rules? Or are you just trying to cripple the other team by making them play by different rules?

That would make you a cheater, a very bad sport yaknow.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
You would dub me a tyrant for suggesting that these criminals be hunted down, given due proces and those found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law? You need a reality check.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
You said kill them Grady.

And if you re-read you'll see, all I ever wanted was for all the criminals to be captured and tried.

I love the idea of Justice, it's a tremendous human quality.

But it's only pure when applied unilatterally. Otherwise it's tyranny.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Obsidian468
These groups are terrorists, pure and simple.


drogo
these guys are true terrorists


namehere
like any other terrorist group


GradyPhilpott
These people are terrorists.


When done by a minority, you call it terrorism. When done by the majority, you call yourselves "innocent". Action against a singled-out target seems unfair. But organized action prejudicial to a vast number of living creatures who can't defend themselves somehow seems "normal".
Terrorism is such a loaded word!

All is ok as long as nothing happens. But if someone goes beyond words, suddenly it seems wrong. As you know, physical actions are useful because some people have difficulty understanding words. The need to be taught in a more concrete style. Besides, there is nothing to argue here. The purpose of demonstrations is to call the attention of those who are just on the brink of understanding.

I agree that it is unfair to single out someone for a demonstration. It is no justice to make an example out of someone. But some activists have a sense of urgency. They know that they are right and have the ability to ignore large chunks of reality.

Back to the subject of animal experimentaton, I would like to say that human experimentation is not very far. The mindset that voluntarily ignores the pain and torture inflicted to animals is the same mindset that gives us periodical reports that, here and there, human experimentation is taking place without consent. And who are the targets usually? Mostly children, elderly, prisoners and the mentally defficient: those who can't defend themselves.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
The responses to this news item seem pretty much of similar mind. Understandable as the activist group's deeds are CRAZY

However, it would be interesting to hear some other "PETA-friendly "opinions on this topic.

In the meantime, I'll be gnawing on a side of beef.


Im not going to bother repeating myself. This topic has already been discussed here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny how animal rights activists garner so much hatred while the real terrorists (Bushco) go unmolested


[edit on 10/5/05 by subz]



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join