Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Two CA homes fire-bombed by animal rights activists

Two CA homes fire-bombed by animal rights activists
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 07:50 PM
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/us...ebombs.html?em

Barf. I hope this incident can help dispel the myth that left-wing terrorists like PETA and ELF are just harmless vandals at heart.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 08:44 PM
 
I'm all for animal rights and vegetarianism and all that, but this sort of behavior crosses the line and does nothing to benefit their cause.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 08:44 PM
 
I hope this incident can dispel the myth that Americans aren't fire-bombers. Because apparently it's fair to generalize this event to reflect on any group you like.

Granted, a disproportionately large number of PETAphiles and the organization's ideology in general are kind of wacked, but I don't think PETA generally supports firebombing.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Aug 7, 2008 at 09:01 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/us...ebombs.html?em

Barf. I hope this incident can help dispel the myth that left-wing terrorists like PETA and ELF are just harmless vandals at heart.
I would hope that, by now, intelligent people would stop making generalizations about stereotyping people who believe in certain things, as regards to whether they are left-wing, right-wing, or whatever. What they in fact are, is nutjobs who are disconnected from reality when it comes to realizing that their actions are wrong, just as those who frequently stereotype are often wrong.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 09:10 PM
 
I think that any self-respecting organization would denounce this - except the crazies who put out those pamplets, obviously.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I hope this incident can dispel the myth that Americans aren't fire-bombers. Because apparently it's fair to generalize this event to reflect on any group you like.

Granted, a disproportionately large number of PETAphiles and the organization's ideology in general are kind of wacked, but I don't think PETA generally supports firebombing.
You may choose to think they "generally don't support" violence, but reality disagrees with you. As stated in the article, this is only "the latest in a series of threats and provocations from those opposed to 'biomedical research using animals,' including..." etc etc. They tend to fly under the radar because they have so far managed not to kill anyone. But just because they are trying to avoid hurting people during their reckless stunts doesn't make it ok. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't ok just because no one happened to die this time. Shooting a sniper rifle into a crowded mall isn't ok just because you promise you were aiming between the people, even if you're an expert marksman. And here's the thing: these activists are hardly experts. As you put it, they're kind of wacked (and that's being extremely generous). Imagine if this stunt wasn't contained by the fire department and it ended up spreading like the wild-fires earlier this summer in CA. Earlier this year they torched a real estate development in my neck of the woods. They managed not to cause any injuries that time, but this week's arson did cause injuries. I think they've exhausted the benefit of the doubt by now. This isn't "generalizing this event to reflect on any group I like." This is generalizing a pattern of violent crimes on a specific population with a history of violent crimes, and a published agenda of social disruption that links to it.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I would hope that, by now, intelligent people would stop making generalizations about stereotyping people who believe in certain things, as regards to whether they are left-wing, right-wing, or whatever.
Animal rights groups aren't all extremely left-wing? How so?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 12:28 AM
 
Yeah, that doesn't really follow. It will be fun to watch OldMan squirm away from that question.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Animal rights groups aren't all extremely left-wing? How so?
So right-wingers believe in killing every living thing on the planet? Get over your silliness. Thousands of apes were just discovered in a remote part of the Congo. Do you want to go kill them all?

Silliness.

So were the Islamists who 'fire-bombed ' the World Trade Center lefties?
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 02:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
So right-wingers believe in killing every living thing on the planet? Get over your silliness. Thousands of apes were just discovered in a remote part of the Congo. Do you want to go kill them all?

Silliness.

So were the Islamists who 'fire-bombed ' the World Trade Center lefties?


edit: on a hunch, I'm going to guess that what this gibberish means is that you agree with the person I was quoting. So I'll ask you: can you name a single animals rights activist group that doesn't also happen to be extremely left wing? I didn't bring that up in order to judge them (I'm a total leftie too), just as a handy categorization tool, to distinguish them from the right-wing nutters that people usually think of first when they hear "terrorist."
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Sorry you're confused. Explains much.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 03:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You may choose to think they "generally don't support" violence, but reality disagrees with you. As stated in the article, this is only "the latest in a series of threats and provocations from those opposed to 'biomedical research using animals,' including..." etc etc. They tend to fly under the radar because they have so far managed not to kill anyone. But just because they are trying to avoid hurting people during their reckless stunts doesn't make it ok. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't ok just because no one happened to die this time. Shooting a sniper rifle into a crowded mall isn't ok just because you promise you were aiming between the people, even if you're an expert marksman. And here's the thing: these activists are hardly experts. As you put it, they're kind of wacked (and that's being extremely generous). Imagine if this stunt wasn't contained by the fire department and it ended up spreading like the wild-fires earlier this summer in CA. Earlier this year they torched a real estate development in my neck of the woods. They managed not to cause any injuries that time, but this week's arson did cause injuries. I think they've exhausted the benefit of the doubt by now. This isn't "generalizing this event to reflect on any group I like." This is generalizing a pattern of violent crimes on a specific population with a history of violent crimes, and a published agenda of social disruption that links to it.
Your logic fails. I can point you to examples of abortion clinic bombings. Do you think all Republicans are terrorists as well? I can point you to attacks by people who disagree with actions taken by the US. Do you think that everybody who disagrees with the US on any matter is a terrorist?

If "some members of X group did something bad, so all X must be bad" were a valid argument, we'd all be proven terrorists. PETA does enough messed up crap that I don't see any need to make up charges that are pretty obviously not true of the organization as a whole.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
If "some members of X group did something bad, so all X must be bad"
I never said they're all bad. I said there is a myth that none of them are bad, that they're just petty vandals and there is nothing for the rest of us to be concerned about, because they would never go so far as to harm people over it (just property). Some members of X group did something bad, therefore all the illegal activities of X must be taken more seriously. You know: fool me you can't get fooled again, as they say

I'm not saying send them all to gitmo in advance, I'm saying that the old "oh boys will be boys" attitude about the leftie side of terrorism which pervades the general American zeitgeist needs to stop, and hopefully this event will open some eyes.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Sorry you're confused. Explains much.
Um, actually, you really dramatically misunderstood the posts.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 11:36 AM
 
Of course, 150 years ago I'm sure the slave holders would rail similarly against the thieves who helped smuggle their property northward.

All a matter of perspective.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 12:08 PM
 
The proper analogy would be railing against abolitionists who burned down plantations (not freeing any slaves at all, sometimes due to actually killing them in the process, like what happened in this 2001 attack in my neighborhood) in retaliation for the continuation of slave ownership in general.

Regardless, animals are not people. You could argue almost anything deserves what we call human rights on a sliding scale of morality, all the way down to grass, rocks or sunlight. But at a certain point you run into the fundamental biology that life eats other life to survive. Mice often eat each other just for fun. To the small degree that (non-human) animals have a sense of morals or culture (such as great apes or elephants), they are already protected, whether you're talking about research or hunting or zoos or whatever animals are used for.

The comparison with slavery just simply doesn't work.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Yeah, that doesn't really follow. It will be fun to watch OldMan squirm away from that question.
I don't have to squirm away from anything. I maintain that the stereotyping of PETA as a rabid left wing group is silly and unprovable. Of course, it would never occur to you that there might be right wingers who don't believe in killing animals needlessly, as you're one of the most rabidly partisan people here.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Animal rights groups aren't all extremely left-wing? How so?
Yeah! Republicans are all about kicking dogs. Everyone knows that. Duh.

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Of course, 150 years ago I'm sure the slave holders would rail similarly against the thieves who helped smuggle their property northward.

All a matter of perspective.
Nice Godwining, there. (<- I use the thumb in remembrance of Zim. *snif*. Good times, good times. er, I mean *hurl*)

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I don't have to squirm away from anything. I maintain that the stereotyping of PETA as a rabid left wing group is silly and unprovable.
Of course they are. It's the image they want, because it gets them the notice they crave for their fundraising.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 12:26 AM
 
I think if these terrorists want to stop these experiments, they should volunteer themselves to be the research subjects.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I maintain that the stereotyping of PETA as a rabid left wing group is silly and unprovable.
PETA isn't the stereotype, it's the prototype. It's the ringleader. It funds all the other animal- and environment-rights groups that do the dirty work. Have you ever taken a look at PETA's wikipedia page? Here's a typical example:

"Rod Coronado, a former ALF activist, received $64,000 from the group and two months later another $38,240 as a loan which has never been paid back to fund his legal defense when he was convicted of having set fire to a Michigan State University research lab in 1992. PETA claimed a tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the donation after the arson took place.[31][28] "

If you don't think that PETA is a major contributor to the melee, then you're exactly the type of person I was referring to in the OP, who needs their eyes opened by events like this week's in Santa Cruz.


Of course, it would never occur to you that there might be right wingers who don't believe in killing animals needlessly
PETA is a left wing organization. You can't deny that. Left wing organizations have right wing members, big surprise.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2008, 02:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I never said they're all bad. I said there is a myth that none of them are bad, that they're just petty vandals and there is nothing for the rest of us to be concerned about, because they would never go so far as to harm people over it (just property). Some members of X group did something bad, therefore all the illegal activities of X must be taken more seriously. You know: fool me you can't get fooled again, as they say

I'm not saying send them all to gitmo in advance, I'm saying that the old "oh boys will be boys" attitude about the leftie side of terrorism which pervades the general American zeitgeist needs to stop, and hopefully this event will open some eyes.
So, let me get this straight: Somebody who is possibly a member of some group you don't like has committed arson, and that means that we should be suspicious of anyone who belongs to any group these people might belong to? There is no logic behind this argument. I don't think there's any substantial faction that believes no PETA member has ever done anything crazy. Any group of sufficient size will have its share of nutbars. The data presented in this thread isn't enough to show a general trend among PETA members.

Like I said earlier, if we believe this reflects on every member of a group, we're all equally suspect. I can point out many [member of some ethnicity I don't like]s who have committed a violent crime, so we should be suspicious of all those ******s!
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2008, 02:26 AM
 
All Republicans have gay sex in airport bathrooms.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2008, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I don't think there's any substantial faction that believes no PETA member has ever done anything crazy.
No, there's a substantial faction that believes PETA as an organization doesn't support dangerous criminal activities that constitute terrorism. And by your habit of reducing your indictment of them to merely "some members are crazy," I suspect you are one of that faction.

The data presented in this thread isn't enough to show a general trend among PETA members.
I'm not saying that this attack and what we know about it right now are enough to demonstrate that PETA and its partner organizations are dangerous terrorists. I'm saying that they ARE in fact dangerous terrorists, and that once more of the facts of this attack come to light it will show you as much. If not on its own, then as part of a pattern of similar attacks, like the arson earlier this year on the housing development in woodinville. I'm only giving you the heads up, that this is not an exception, this is the rule. I'm asking you to please pay attention and don't just forget about this attack before the next one occurs.

They want to hide their dangerous nature from you. They want to incite terror in the research community but at the same time fly under the radar of the general public, whom they want to continue donating to them. They want you, the potential funder, to think this is some anomaly, some individual nut gone off the deep end and is not part of an organized campaign of terror, while not undermining their message to me, the researcher, that this actually is an organized campaign of terror and that they want me to be afraid I will be next.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 10:43 AM
 
The use of the word 'terrorism' in this context is ridiculous.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
The use of the word 'terrorism' in this context is ridiculous.
In what way?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Animal rights groups aren't all extremely left-wing? How so?
Why don't you explain, instead, what you think makes animal rights groups "left-wing"?
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Why don't you explain, instead, what you think makes animal rights groups "left-wing"?
Because of all the many animal rights groups I know of specifically, they are all agreed to be left-wing by both themselves and by outsiders (and after all, political labels like this are nothing more than agreed upon classifications by those who use them). Can you name an exception?

Edit: But now that you mention it, if you take "liberal" to mean "straying from the status quo" and "conservative" to mean "conserving the status quo," then animal rights would be "liberal" by definition, since they wish to change the rights we grant to animals. Your turn, Wiskedjak.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
The use of the word 'terrorism' in this context is ridiculous.
It seems accurate to me. The intent of these attacks appears to have been to incite terror for political gain — that is, terrorism.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
It seems accurate to me. The intent of these attacks appears to have been to incite terror for political gain — that is, terrorism.
Well, you're entitled to try to twist words for political gain, but for most normal people terrorism has to target lives of innocent people.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
Well, you're entitled to try to twist words for political gain, but for most normal people terrorism has to target lives of innocent people.
So what you're saying is that the families that lived in the homes which were firebombed were not innocent?

When last I knew, we had a judicial system that determined guilt or innocence, with the presumption of innocence being the default position. Who made the terrorists authorities to judge? On what basis do you judge the families guilty?
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
Well, you're entitled to try to twist words for political gain, but for most normal people terrorism has to target lives of innocent people.
Make that "threaten" lives of "any" people. The skyjacking is still the archetype of terrorism. Even if the intent is to keep all the victims alive and unharmed, and even if that intent is achieved, the threat of harm is what makes it terrorism. Further, the identity of the victims is irrelevant. If the terrorists oppose Israel and they hijack a plane, it is still terrorism whether the plane is full of random gentiles, full of Israeli citizens, or even full of Israeli government officials. It's still terrorism in all those situations.

Edit: even if the plane is full of convicted war criminals, it would still be considered terrorism. Although I can't see that happening.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Make that "threaten" lives of "any" people. The skyjacking is still the archetype of terrorism. Even if the intent is to keep all the victims alive and unharmed, and even if that intent is achieved, the threat of harm is what makes it terrorism. Further, the identity of the victims is irrelevant. If the terrorists oppose Israel and they hijack a plane, it is still terrorism whether the plane is full of random gentiles, full of Israeli citizens, or even full of Israeli government officials. It's still terrorism in all those situations.

Edit: even if the plane is full of convicted war criminals, it would still be considered terrorism. Although I can't see that happening.
It's not clear to me that lives were threatened in this case though. Since your definition seems to hinge on intent and reception of that intent it would, of course, be impossible to implement. Of course, that's your intent - the de-facto definition becomes 'things I don't like'.
This cheapens the efforts of people who are really trying to deal with actual 'terrorists', and debases the entire debate.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 08:10 PM
 
Burning someone's house down while they're still inside it doesn't count as threatening in your view?

This cheapens the efforts of people who are really trying to deal with actual 'terrorists'
I thought you'd go there. Look, before 9/11, terrorism was not the OMG EVIL! that it is now. It was petty. It was pathetic. It was the last resort of weaponless groups who couldn't cause us harm unless they were able to use our own fear against us. And then the Bushies decided that terrorists were going to be the Next Big Scapegoatâ„¢, and the general feeling at the time was to resist that campaign. New Yorkers didn't want their grief to be an excuse for revenge. By now, though, people have completely bought in to the Bushie crap-pile, that "Islamo-fascists" are the "real" terrorists, and they're some sort of superhuman arch nemesis of the US, as if they warrant the same level of response as the Soviets or the Nazis.

It's a lie, and if you buy this lie, then mere mortals like Tim McViegh, the Unabomber and PETA can't be cut from the same cloth, because they're not "real terrorists." But even worse than that, if you buy this lie, it plays right into the "real terrorists'" hands. They want you to overreact to them. They want to be seen as demagogues. They want to promote the illusion that they have actual power beyond the ability to "terror" us up enough to hurt ourselves, to do their job for them. Terrorists' only useful weapon is our terror. When you build up our fear of them and our reverence for them, you're handing them that weapon. When you call al qaeda the "actual terrorists" as if they're more terrifying than domestic terrorists, you're doing their job for them. You're the one cheapening the efforts against actual terrorists, because you're fueling the terrorists' war machine. That machine is composed entirely of our fear of them. Without our cooperation in building up their terrorist persona, they have nothing.

So no, suicide bombers are not "greater" than domestic terrorists. They're not "more terrible" and they're not "less petty." And stop building them up by saying they are.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2008, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I thought you'd go there. Look, before 9/11, terrorism was not the OMG EVIL! that it is now. It was petty. It was pathetic.
You mean it was committed by white people and it was fashionable to fundraise for it in New York?
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
You mean it was committed by white people and it was fashionable to fundraise for it in New York?
I don't think Libya ever had any fashionable fundraisers in NY.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 11:09 AM
 
I see where you're going with your rant about terrorists, you've just got it wrong. If you let the govt define any crime as terrorism, and then decide that terrorists don't have the right to legal process, that's a big mistake. Next on the list of 'terror crimes'? Political protest.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 11:37 AM
 
Well the key word there is 'warfare' - it seems really important to me that we not allow the criminal system to become confused with the military. There's nothing good down that road. Firebombing an abortion clinic is not an act of warfare - it's a crime, it's not terrorism.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 11:37 AM
 
The govt can't define any crime as terrorism, the dictionary that does that just fine: terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (from OS X's built-in). That's this attack to a T. That doesn't mean terrorists don't have right to legal process, and that doesn't mean terrorists are any more than petty criminals, and they never were. The fact that this never even occurred to you is a splendid demonstration of how far you've been brainwashed by the Bush war machine.

Letting "terrorism" become the Big Boogeyman is where it all went off the rails. That you're taking that as fact but giving a pass to actual terrorists is the biggest travesty of all.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
I see where you're going with your rant about terrorists, you've just got it wrong. If you let the govt define any crime as terrorism, and then decide that terrorists don't have the right to legal process, that's a big mistake. Next on the list of 'terror crimes'? Political protest.
The term is overused, but it's also not right to say that nothing is terrorism. Assuming these people were firebombed because of the animal research they do, it seems pretty clear that the primary intent of these attacks was to create fear and intimidate. That's terrorism — a method of warfare focused on psychological impact. Because really, taking two scientists out of a huge number in their field isn't significant progress towards the military goal of ending animal testing. But it is a good way of spreading fear.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Aug 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 11:42 AM
 
Guys, terrorism isn't warfare, it's crime. Terrorists aren't soldiers, they're criminals. You may be confused when the _army_ captures actual soldiers in a _war zone_ and somehow gets away with calling those people "terrorists." Terrorism used by soldiers in the context of warfare is traditionally called "guerrilla warfare." The fact that the Bush administration has managed to re-brand that activity as "terrorism" is a tragedy for the fight against actual terrorism.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 11:59 AM
 
Yes, there is some practical point to this. It is vital to separate law enforcement from war fighting and counterterrorism. When you're in Guantanamo labelled a terrorist for blocking traffic as part of a protest this distinction will not seem like hair-splitting. If you think this is extreme, the govt has sought terrorism multipliers for environmental protests that have had NO chance of injuring anyone. Think these powers will only be used against groups you don't like? Think again.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 12:03 PM
 
Yes, terror attacks are often employed by guerilla fighters. Are you saying guerilla fighters are not committing crimes? Is there some practical point to this hair-splitting? If it looks and quacks like a duck, I'm just going to call it a duck for the sake of simplicity.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Yes, terror attacks are often employed by guerrilla fighters. Are you saying guerrilla fighters are not committing crimes? Is there some practical point to this hair-splitting? If it looks and quacks like a duck, I'm just going to call it a duck for the sake of simplicity.
Right. Guerilla warfare is not terrorism, though, as you say, guerrilla fighters often employ terrorist tactics.

Anyone remember Red Dawn? The Wolverines were guerrilla fighters, but they weren't terrorists (though, if I recall, they started to flirt with the idea of employing terrorist tactics).
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 12:10 PM
 
Remember the French resistance, anyone? The US war of independence? Terrorists! The Civil rights movement? Terrorists!
In fact, the word doesn't really mean anything except 'people whose rights we want to trample on' anymore. Usually when someone uses the word they mean 'criminal', 'prisoner of war', 'soldier' or 'insurgent'.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Yes, terror attacks are often employed by guerilla fighters. Are you saying guerilla fighters are not committing crimes? Is there some practical point to this hair-splitting? If it looks and quacks like a duck, I'm just going to call it a duck for the sake of simplicity.
It's the same point as distinguishing a state of war from peacetime. The same action warrants a different appropriate reaction depending on whether it's part of a "war." Do you disagree?
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
If you think this is extreme, the govt has sought terrorism multipliers for environmental protests that have had NO chance of injuring anyone. Think these powers will only be used against groups you don't like? Think again.
What is a "terrorism multiplier?"

Crimes whose purpose is to threaten a larger group are worse than equivalent crimes sans threat. If I burn an empty house to collect insurance, that is a lesser crime than if I burn down an empty house to send a message to the neighborhood that I intend them harm.

If a group I do "like" commits acts of terrorism in the name of their cause, they deserve to be treated as such. That doesn't mean secret prisons and torture. That kind of crap isn't justified in the "worldwide war on terror" either. That's the whole point. By elevating the "real terrorists" over domestic terrorists, you're defending the secret prisons and the torture and abandonment of due process. "It's ok for the 'real terrorists' but not for domestic terrorists which I don't consider terrorists." No. It is most definitely not ok for the people you call 'real terrorists.' Remembering that real terrorists are indeed people like PETA too will hopefully remind you how NOT ok this whole "worldwide war on terror" farce is. Domestic terrorists need to be taken seriously too, under due process. Just like all the other terrorists.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What is a "terrorism multiplier?"
An additional sentence tacked on because it comes under terror laws. I suggest you look into this a little before you form a half-cocked opinion.
     
Uncle Skeleton  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2008, 09:07 PM
 
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,