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.

 

If you are in PETA you could soon be considered a terrorist

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
So if you go about destroying a lab or someones property "for the animals" shouldn't you be punished for such an action? I'm sorry but when you hurt others in the pursuit of your political or social goals in America I think it is fair that you should pay the consequences of your actions.




how about those who peforms animal cruelty and murder, howcome they are viewed as the good ones?




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   
of course there shouldn't be any acts of violence to solve any problems no matter what problem it is...

Just because some people who are in peta take things on a unpeacefull level doesn't mean that it's peta's fault.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The noose has been tightening for some time on any group which stands between faceless corporations and the natural world. If this brings you comfort then you deserve the world that's coming.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
As of today, most of the business enterprises that PETA targets are LEGAL. If you are a member of PETA or any other activist group that:


`(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;


and


`(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation;


or


`(C) conspires or attempts to do so;


you will be punished according to this schedule:


`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and--

`(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or

`(B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000;

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and--

`(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or

`(B) the offense instills in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death;

`(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $100,000; or

`(B) the offense results in substantial bodily injury to another individual;

`(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if--

`(A) the offense results in serious bodily injury to another individual; or

`(B) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $1,000,000; and

`(5) imprisonment for life or for any terms of years, a fine under this title, or both, if the offense results in death of another individual.


You might be labelled an eco terrorist but that is not the same as an ALIEN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMABTANT as defined by the Military Commissions Act

It's a huge misrepresentation to say that animal rights activists will be dissapeared and tortured. If they illegally destroy or disrupt legal business activities and in the process threaten or harm individuals and/or destroy property they will be punished under the laws of the United States as detailed in the bill

I don't get why anyone has any problems with this.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless

how about those who peforms animal cruelty and murder, howcome they are viewed as the good ones?




Um no offense, but murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another human being. Killing an animal, even cruelly, is not considered murder in a court of law. Now you probably think I'm a jerk.

As for those who practice animal cruelty and it is proved in a court of law, throw the book at them. However you can't make up the book yourself and enforce your own laws on someone without going through the proper procedures. Some Animal activists for the most part, disregard laws and implement their own form of justice on people. Explain to me how that is right?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
PETA is not on my good side at all. As a fisherman, I hate to see when PETA protests the Bass Masters Tournaments saying fishing hurts the fish. PETA is breaking the law any time they disrupt or destroy legal activities by law abiding citizens(i.e. Fishing, Produce Transport, Animal Testing Facilities.). So if they do these things, they should be punished, but I dont think they are in the so called "Terrorist League" with the likes of ELF or ALF. Those two do some really insane things such as burning entire apartment complexes ect ect. I dont think PETA should be called terrorists, they are more of just a nuisance to those of us who enjoy hunting and fishing and other outdoor activities.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I simply can't stand Peta - I think they use emotional blackmail to get others to do their dirty work.

That said - I can't stand bullies even less. Those that would take a position of power over animals merely because they can are the lowest of the low regardless on what the law says, and should be stopped. It is ones highest moral athority to stand against cruelty.

If machines get broke - Ohh well. If bullies get bullied - what do you expect. Cause - effect.

If Peta, or any organisation does something that is against the law, then they are criminals - but not terrorists. To make that jump, to me, seems like a recipe for carrnage.

BTW - what would you do? If your chioce is damaging some equipment and getting nailed under a terrorist law, Or just offing the guys and get nailed for murder? Why is the equipment carry a heavier charge?

When you answer that, you'll know how important you as a human are to these wingnuts, and why this will envaribly lead to carnage.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
If you are going to echo cliche opinions & judge organisations such as Peta & Animal Liberation, at least be as shallow as to read a wiki page: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
If you are going to echo cliche opinions & judge organisations such as Peta & Animal Liberation, at least be as shallow as to read a wiki page: en.wikipedia.org...


Well as far as I am concerned animal testing benefits mankind so why not use it?

I will be darned if I am going to listen to the likes of Ingrid and her band of thugs hell they killed dogs in NC last year, yet have the guts to claim they stand for the ethical treatment of animals! I don't think so. :shk:



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
BTW - what would you do? If your chioce is damaging some equipment and getting nailed under a terrorist law, Or just offing the guys and get nailed for murder? Why is the equipment carry a heavier charge?



Please, please. please READ the proposed law before you go spouting nonsense. If you damage equipment you can get a fine and imprisonment, not more than 20 years. If you "off" the person as you put it, you can get up to and including a life term. You make no sense at all when you state things incorrectely that have been posted 2 or 3 times in this particular thread. The latest was only 3 replies above you and quite full of the punishments. Take a breath, read it and then post.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
BTW - what would you do? If your chioce is damaging some equipment and getting nailed under a terrorist law, Or just offing the guys and get nailed for murder? Why is the equipment carry a heavier charge?



Please, please. please READ the proposed law before you go spouting nonsense. If you damage equipment you can get a fine and imprisonment, not more than 20 years. If you "off" the person as you put it, you can get up to and including a life term. You make no sense at all when you state things incorrectely that have been posted 2 or 3 times in this particular thread. The latest was only 3 replies above you and quite full of the punishments. Take a breath, read it and then post.


You are absolutely correct. My apologies. I was clearly off the mark. Serves me right for not RTFA.




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
If you are going to echo cliche opinions & judge organisations such as Peta & Animal Liberation, at least be as shallow as to read a wiki page: en.wikipedia.org...


Well as far as I am concerned animal testing benefits mankind so why not use it?
I will be darned if I am going to listen to the likes of Ingrid and her band of thugs hell they killed dogs in NC last year, yet have the guts to claim they stand for the ethical treatment of animals! I don't think so. :shk:


I am simply saying... if you are going to be for (or against) animal testing, the least you can do is read a simple wiki about it so you can justify your opinion in a semi-articulate manner. You owe it to the animals being (ab)used for 'mankind's benefit' to at least know about what they go through.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I think the problem is going to lie in the fine line between standing up for what you believe in and extremism. If the government starts to label everyone who is considered an extremist in whatever they are standing up against, (or for), starts to be labeled a terrorist, somebody somewhere is going to have to define what extremism really is. When I was in the Army I was not allowed to participate with or in any way be affiliated with any organization that the military deemed extremist. One example of this would be a Union. Are you a member of Union? You might soon be considered a terrorist if the United States government treats its civilians the same way it does its soldiers. I have an anarchy tattoo on my wrist; I'm an anarchist. Am I an extremist who blows up government facilities or even ever plans on doing something as small as vandalizing a government building? No. But when the government sees that tattoo, they affiliate it with the extremist anarchists that they are familiar with, and I could be considered a terrorist, too. Who is going to decide what's too extreme? The people? Haha. Whatever... This could get interesting.


[edit on 16/11/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi

I am simply saying... if you are going to be for (or against) animal testing, the least you can do is read a simple wiki about it so you can justify your opinion in a semi-articulate manner. You owe it to the animals being (ab)used for 'mankind's benefit' to at least know about what they go through.


Science has already done the justification for me, they have proven by using animals to test new drugs they can save people from death.

What would you propose they do; Test new drugs on humans and kill them?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Shar_Chi

I am simply saying... if you are going to be for (or against) animal testing, the least you can do is read a simple wiki about it so you can justify your opinion in a semi-articulate manner. You owe it to the animals being (ab)used for 'mankind's benefit' to at least know about what they go through.


Science has already done the justification for me, they have proven by using animals to test new drugs they can save people from death.
What would you propose they do; Test new drugs on humans and kill them?

I'm not proposing anything here. You are championing a cause yet you can't even be bothered reading a simple wiki about it. Ignorance must be bliss for a self-proclaimed 'guardian of the world'.

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Shar_Chi]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I'm not proposing anything here. You are championing a cause yet you can't even be bothered reading a simple wiki about it. Ignorance must be bliss for a self-proclaimed 'guardian of the world'.



Why should I read that tripe? I already made it very clear the science has proven using them is right by saving lives. If believing in science is ignorance; I will take it any day of the week over using humans as test subjects.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I'm not proposing anything here. You are championing a cause yet you can't even be bothered reading a simple wiki about it. Ignorance must be bliss for a self-proclaimed 'guardian of the world'.



Why should I read that tripe? I already made it very clear the science has proven using them is right by saving lives. If believing in science is ignorance; I will take it any day of the week over using humans as test subjects.


No, don't bother reading any facts for yourself. Just keep making a fool of yourself with broad and clumsy statements such as 'science has proven using them is right'.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I am simply saying... if you are going to be for (or against) animal testing, the least you can do is read a simple wiki about it so you can justify your opinion in a semi-articulate manner. You owe it to the animals being (ab)used for 'mankind's benefit' to at least know about what they go through.


I don't think anyone really likes animal testing, however for many things there is no real substitute for using animals as test subjects. If there are better ways of testing things that are used by humans then by all means use them. You have to balance out the good the testing does for mankind with the pain and suffering these animals no doubt do go through. I favor erring on the side of the benefits to mankind achieved by a lot of animal testing. Not that I would want to do the research myself mind you.

Anyway you cut it, it has moral implications. What if for example we could clone animals that were impervious to feeling pain or emotions for testing? Would that be more humane or less? I'm not sure myself.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Hey we all know that some people in PETA are wack jobs but I know people that belong and give money etc and they are normal and I wouldn't consider them terrorists.

Is the government doing this to protect business from inconveniences they might encounter in future?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Is the government doing this to protect business from inconveniences they might encounter in future?



Not inconveniences, crimes.

Anyone who damages property, uses physical violence, or employs personal threats, in order to damage or disrupt a legal business will be charged and punished accordingly.

It's really quite simple.

The reason the word terrorism is used is because its accurate.

Terrorism: "The unlawful use of, or threatened use of, force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments, organizations, or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join