Ongoing terrorist attacks in US and UK

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
So this story just happened, and haven't seen it really covered at all.


The FBI is looking into the firebombing of a vehicle owned by a UCLA neuroscientist who was targeted by an anti-animal research group for using primates in his study of psychiatric disorders.

The March 7 incident involving a homemade incendiary device took place outside the faculty member's home and caused no injuries, according to FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller. The UCLA professor, who researches treatments for schizophrenia, drug addiction and other disorders, was not identified.

The firebombing is one in a series of aggressive acts aimed at university researchers who use animals in medical studies, UCLA spokesman Phil Hampton said. In other cases, firebombs have been left on doorsteps and in homes, vehicles have been vandalized and researchers have received threatening phone calls and e-mails.

The harassment led to a court order last year that has since been converted into a preliminary injunction banning the distribution of researchers' personal information on websites and fliers.

Eimiller said the investigation of Saturday's incident will be conducted by a Joint Terrorism Task Force that includes the FBI, the LAPD, the Los Angeles Fire Department, the UCLA Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The Animal Liberation Front posted a message on its website Monday from a group that claimed responsibility for the firebombing.
story

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Its almost every week now I have been reading about some sort of attack by the Animal Liberation Front. Most of their work is happening in the UK, but yet none of their attacks are getting much press coverage.

These types of attacks are increasing at a alarming rate.

The Arlington, Va.-based Animal Agriculture Alliance reports that during 2008, attacks on the global food chain from animal rights and environmental extremists jumped 42% - from 155 in 2007 to 220 last year. Much of the increase came from the Animal Liberation Front. Those attacks exploded 377%. Information compiled by the Alliance indicated there were 640 acts of sabotage, vandalism and arson in 2008, up from 467 the previous year.
story

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So why is it that these stories are usually buried on the back page of the newspaper? It seems to me that the US and the UK much rather go to foreign land to fight terrorist than face it on the home front. Is it because people feel sympathy for these terrorist? Maybe because they are not wearing turban and screaming jihad. Is there some sort of Robin Hood effect with these guys. Since they are saving animals, people feel compassion for them? Well they also kill animals in their attacks.


Turin, Italy - Dozens of birds were killed Wednesday at a private zoo in Italy in an arson attack claimed by radical animal rights activists, news reports said.

Several bottles filled with petrol were used to start the fire which killed some 40 hawks, buzzards and owls in an aviary at the Zoom Zoo near the northern city of Turin.
story


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


These terror attacks are only going to get worse, and this is just another example on how the war on terrorism is a complete failure.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Have you considered that the real conspiracy here lies not in the animal liberation movement but instead in the black ops that create situations like this to make animal activists look guilty? Hard to believe that they would actually kill animals in the process unless of course it would be to put them out of their misery.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
The Animal Liberation Front is not a terrorist organisation and is not classified as one either in the United Kingdom or the United States (according to my knowledge)

Operations mainly involve rescuing animals from abuse and occasional direct action, rarely are bombing campaigns used or considered in cell meetings.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 

Correct, neither the ALF or the "eco-terrorist" groups like the Earth Liberation Front are on the FBI's terrorist organization list, however both groups have been under investigation by the FBI several times in the past.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I was involved in ALF actions in the UK back in the 80's.
We never did anything to harm any Human or animal. We only attacked property that was being used to exploit animals.

I guess it could be called terrorism. But the word terrorism has taken on an extremely negative vibe because of the MSM.
The US terrorises Iraqi's on a daily basis, for example, and some people would consider this necessary.

Those that care for LIFE, of any kind, feel completely justified terrorising those that HARM life, animal or human. Who is the real evil?

And yes the MSM is involved in the systematic discrediting of anything that tries to force change to the way things are. I know first hand that they lie and try to make the ALF look as bad as they can. The media has it's own vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

One thing to remember the ALF is NOT an organisation, it's a loosely associated group of people with similar interests. Anybody can claim to be ALF. Anybody can damage property and then paint ALF slogans, it doesn't mean all ALF supporters agree with that action. There are no ALF comity to make rules, or blame for what others do in their name.

Take the MSM with a HUGE grain of salt, or better yet don't read it at all if you want serious journalism.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
The Animal Liberation Front is not a terrorist organisation and is not classified as one either in the United Kingdom or the United States (according to my knowledge)

Operations mainly involve rescuing animals from abuse and occasional direct action, rarely are bombing campaigns used or considered in cell meetings.


If you are having "cell" meetings then you ARE A CRIMINAL with CRIMINAL INTENT.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mhinsey
 


I think thats a harsh label to put on someone, dont you?
Just by the name "cell" meeting?
I do beleive that if the a.l.f. ever killed anyone, or anything it would be viewed like bombing an abortion clinic.
Like claiming they are killers, yet the fanatic kills with the bombing himself.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mhinsey
 


No.

Majority of the issues raised and discussed are not criminal or intent to break the law.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
The Animal Liberation Front is not a terrorist organisation and is not classified as one either in the United Kingdom or the United States (according to my knowledge)

Operations mainly involve rescuing animals from abuse and occasional direct action, rarely are bombing campaigns used or considered in cell meetings.


How are they not a terrorist group? Arson, vandalism, breaking and entering, telephone threats, and following researches kids home form school. This is just the acts of a small group of ALF members from the last two years around the UCLA campus. In the UK the acts of violence are much worse.

They target brilliant minds trying to make the world a better place. These goons have no idea what goes on in the labs. I have never seen a animal rights advocate volunteer their body to save a couple hundred rats. Do they not go to the doctors when they are sick? Have they never taken an aspirin when they had a headache? I doubt it. Put one of their relatives on a death bed and they will be screaming for modern medicine to save their love one.

Animals used for research are bred for one purpose, research. They wouldn't even have a life if it wasn't for science. Its not like professors and researches go into the sewers in their spare time and collect rodents. Or ripping a baby of a non human primate out of its mothers arms. Each institution has a board that must approve every thing that gets down on an animal. And each board must have a member of the community with no ties to the institution. Even if all you want to do is look at an animal that has to be voted on by the board. Then that gets subject to review by the government.

Yes, painful things do happen to animals in labs. But its not done by a bunch of mad scientist with no limitations. If someone doesn't stop organizations like ALF they are going to end up killing some of our greatest minds that we have. If these terrorist want to live in the stone age, go for it. But don't interfere evolution of science.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by testrat]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by testrat
Yes, painful things do happen to animals in labs. But its not done by a bunch of mad scientist with no limitations. If someone doesn't stop organizations like ALF they are going to end up killing some of our greatest minds that we have.


Sorry but I think you're a little naive...

What kind of 'great mind' did it take to do this?...


Mars recently funded an experiment on rats at the University of California, San Francisco, to determine the effect of chocolate ingredients on the animals' blood vessels, even though the experimenter admitted that studies have already been done using humans...
More



Most animal experiments are unnecessary and don't give the same results when tested on Humans...


According to the FDA, 92% of all drugs found safe and/or effective in animal tests fail during human clinical human trials...The prescribed arthritis painkiller Vioxx went through many tests including animal tests. The drug appeared to be safe and actually helpful to the heart in animal tests. In, 2004 the drug was withdrawn from the market after being the reported cause of over 320,000 heart attacks and heart failures worldwide, 140,000 of them being fatal...

personal.georgiasouthern.edu...

What gives us the right? Animal experiments are not all about testing drugs. They test cosmetics and household products by putting them in animals eyes, so when you put them on your selfish face they don't burn your precious human eyes.


Every year, cosmetics companies kill millions of animals to test their products. These companies claim they test on animals to establish the safety of their products and ingredients for consumers. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require animal testing for cosmetics, and alternative testing methods are widely available and lead to more reliable results. Hundreds of companies already use humane non-animal testing methods to ensure the safety of their cosmetics.

www.idausa.org...

This is why we have the ALF, a direct result of inhumane acts, it's in our nature to protect life. Maybe people are so wrapped up in self interest that as long as it benefits them it's OK, they have no compassion or empathy left for other life. If you want those products so badly, how about you test them on yourself?

[edit on 3/12/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by testrat
In the UK the acts of violence are much worse.


Want to give me some examples of these "worse" acts of violence? Never seen or heard about them in the UK.

As I said, "terrorist" actions are not discussed at cell meetings.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Of course there is stupid science that is done out. Why anyone would fund such idiotic research for rats eating chocolate is beyond me. But most research is for the good of society.

And I do agree animals should not be used for cosmetic purposes.

Its extremely hard to make a drug that cures a disease that have no sides effects. I am surprised that 92% failure rate isn't higher. Which so many lawsuits out against major companies you have to be 100% sure that your drug is not going to have any unwanted side affects.

The mouse genome is 99% similar to humans. It makes a good model. If data looks good in animal then there is a chance it can carry over to humans. But if this was true all the time, then people wouldn't be getting sick.

Groups like PETA go about making a difference in a non violent way. They have commercials, silly little promotions, then buy billboards, they don't have to resort to arson and intimidation. And they are way more successful than ALF. ALF is a terrorist group.

Look, I am all for the humane treatment of animals. But I like people better. I don't like seeing people die from illness that can be prevented.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by testrat
...But most research is for the good of society...


Well I don't agree. What is done to animals in the name of science is not common knowledge, the MSM is not going to tell you this, so how do you know what testing is going on to be able to make this claim?

It's just an assumption isn't it? You WANT to believe that science only does good things for society.


Animal Testing
Since 1997, when undercover footage of a research lab ignited an international campaign, the ongoing controversy over animal testing has avoided spectacular media attention. For the purposes of medicine, cosmetics and exploratory research, at least 50 million animals are tested on and processed each year around the world. Critics of animal testing protest that most procedures are unnecessary and that regulation like the Animal Welfare Act of 1996 is atrociously inadequate. Defenders propose a choice between human and animal welfare, noting advancements like transplant technology and penicillin that were largely based on animal tests.

theissue.com...

Again what gives us the right to abuse animals simply for our benefit? Life is life, why do we consider our lives more precious than any other creature? Just because we can?

If a process REALLY needs to be tested on an animal then fine, but it's not like that at all, animals are used to tests many many things that are not a necessity to the 'good of society', and how good is a society that allows this kind of abuse of life?

Edit; BTW did you read about the tests Mars did I posted above? Do you really think a test that was done on Humans already needed to be done again on animals? How is that good for society? In fact how is Mars good for society? Obesity anyone?

I think those of you who support animal testing should go and volunteer yourselves to have chemicals put in your eyes, or eye liner/lipstick/face cream etc., or probes put in your brains, or forced to smoke cigarettes continuously until your lungs explode, or used as target practice for new weapons testing (they use pigs).

[edit on 3/13/2009 by ANOK]





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join