Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by R.Perez, May 11, 2011.
Full article available HERE:
Source: Mother Jones
The FBI act like domestic terrorists sometimes.
Well, *some* animal rights and environmental activists indeed use intimidation and even violent tactics to achieve their goals--so for some the label of a "terrorist" fits well.
Obviously, distributing leaflets is hardly a terrorist act(unless there was a threat written on it). If you are an activist of any type you have to make sure the group you support uses ethical means to achieve their goals. Otherwise, even if you do something innocuous--like distributing flyers--you can be held responsible for the actions of the group.
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me either if the FBI knowingly intimidated and victimized this couple to get info. It's hard to say from a one sided article.
Define "violent tactics"
In a lot of cases property damage is labeled "terrorism."
Regardless of whether or not such an act is right or wrong, or illegal is not the argument here. It is not "terrorism."
They label acts like this terrorism for only one reason, and that is to intimidate activists and protect corporations.
Look up the SHAC7 if you want to see how the government uses charges of terrorism to intimidate activists expressing free speech.
The scientists who have worked at various labs have received repeated phone calls telling them they must stop their work immediately or they and their family will be killed--their homes have been broken into. They have had rocks thrown through their windows, their cars vandalized and even burned. I would say that is terrorism.
I would agree. Same goes for some of the activities outside abortion clinics. However, you have to use your discretion, as the vast majority of anti-abortion protesters and animal rights protesters are not in the least bit like that. You can't assume everyone is a terrorist by default.
This is utterly ridiculous.
Agreed. There are plenty of animal and environmental activist groups that are peaceful and ethical in conduct. The sad thing is its the extremist groups that get the press and ruin the reputation of all the others.
This is also true.
Reeks of fish.
I wanted so much to believe that this story was from another one of those crackpot paranoid e-mails that circulate throughout the internets. Then I saw the source.
Jesus H. Christ.
This behavior is so off-the-wall that I'm guessing somebody at that insurance company, or the animal testing lab, has close ties with someone in the FBI who'll do them special "favors". Like gin up a few leaflets into a full-blown terrorist threat.
Please name a population that doesn't include *some* members who do the same ...
*some* Irishmen use intimidation and even violent tactics to achieve their goals.
*some* Buddhists use intimidation and even violent tactics to achieve their goals ... but not me ... at least most of the time.
*some* Right to Lifers use intimidation and even violent tactics to achieve their goals.
As long as *some* qualifies a group as "terrorist", you will have many, many, many terrorist groups. Personally, I'd rethink that standard. It's a bit too broad.
What I suspect is that this is not being applied evenly across the board. How many anti-abortion groups made the t-list?
Maybe I'll see if I can find out.
Have they been intimidated? Yes.
Has anyone ever actually been physically harmed or killed? No.
I am not suggesting the tactics used are right or wrong, but lets keep things in context please.
Also do you know what it is that these people do to animals in their labs that makes activists so outraged in the first place?
Well, there *are* many terrorist groups in the world actually. I wouldn't put extremist animal rights activists on the same level as the NRA or Al Qaeda --but some do fit the definition as terrorists.
Most of the violence committed by right to lifers are by lone individuals. Though there may be a pro-life group or two who may fit the bill as well.
I don't like to see animals suffering either -- and if they are being tortured by some sadistic person then I'm all for having that person locked up. However, we need the science from animal experiments. Anyway, I don't mean to revive the old debate over animal experimentation that never ends.
Its actually been pretty disproven its not really a "debate."
Its been kept alive because its a billion dollar industry that has power lobbies like anything else.
Im guessing you refused to watch the videos. BTW most of what HLS does is for cosmetics and consumer chemical companies and not "necessary."
In the UK researchers have had their houses and cars burned down, been stabbed with dirty needles and sent letter bombs. Here, animal testing on cosmetics has been banned for nearly 15 years, yet these tactics are still used against medical researchers.
When my university was building a new research lab, and I went on a march with hundreds of others supporting its construction. Thankfully, those who turned out to oppose us were angry but not violent.
Uh, where and when did using animals for the testing of medical procedures and materials become "disproven"? How do you disprove the use of a guinea pig, for example, in immunological research? Or oncological? Links please.
That said, using animals to test cosmetics and shampoos is disgusting and should have been banned decades ago.
I suggest we allow these multi-million dollar corporations to pay human subjects for the dangerous testing.
Do you know how many lives have been saved as a result of drugs which only came into existence because of animal testing?
The funny thing is that a significant number of those protesters are alive to protest BECAUSE someone tested some drug or procedure on an animal.
Or they could just use long-term residents of "the big house".
Well, we have plenty of poor and desperate people who'd likely volunteer.
Non-political aside: There are 13 very funny episodes of a comedy series that never got picked-up called Testees, that covers this exact subject. I highly recommend it.