Animal Rights terrorists

.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy,
visit the Junk Science Home Page.

What is Junk Science?

Special rules for this forum.

Debunkers

PETA, Greenpeace and "Citizens groups"

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Animal Rights terrorists
SPQR Moderator	posted 11-28-2005 09:52 PM This piece discussed vandalism and veiled threats by animal rights terrorists in response to a planned but aborted deer cull in New York state. To date, we don't see the follow through by these wannabe terrorists but they are working themselves up to it. IP: Logged
driedwater Member	posted 11-29-2005 01:38 AM quote: Dr. Jerry Vlasak is a trauma surgeon in Los Angeles, California. He also serves as one of the press officers for the NAALPO. According to a recent story on “60 Minutes”, Vlasak has said, “I think for five lives, ten lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, ten million nonhuman lives.” He told CBS, “I think people who torture innocent beings should be stopped. And if they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they won't stop when you demonstrate to them what they're doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means necessary. I think if murder is being advocated by these moronic people, I don't think it's too much to ask that they be identified. And for every pound of venison they don't eat, I'm going to eat three. IP: Logged
Nightman Member	posted 11-29-2005 08:00 AM There is no difference between these people, Irish Terror Gangs and Al Quaida ------------------ Nightman Who doesn't usually believe everything that he sees in the media. IP: Logged
SPQR Moderator	posted 11-29-2005 09:42 AM quote: Originally posted by Nightman: There is no difference between these people, Irish Terror Gangs and Al Quaida There is a difference both qualitative and quantitative, but the difference will close in the future in my opinion. IP: Logged
Sam Mc Kee Member	posted 11-29-2005 11:00 AM One of the qualitative differences, IMO, is that Islamic terrorists know no bounds. They honestly believe that if they die killing infidels they are guaranteed an eternity with 70 hot babes. The guys who firebomb in the name of animal rights are primarily doing it to impress girls in the here and now, though I doubt that many of them have actually thought through their motives to that extent. They are still despicable, but their survival instincts work in society's favor. IP: Logged
setnahkt Member	posted 11-29-2005 07:04 PM quote: Originally posted by Sam Mc Kee: ... They honestly believe that if they die killing infidels they are guaranteed an eternity with 70 hot babes. ... That's 72 hot babes. And you know, after the first couple of weeks, I think I'd really want to take some time off to read a book. IP: Logged
Psion Member	posted 12-01-2005 08:26 AM And that's 72 virgins, not necessarily hot babes. Oh sure, some of them might be babes, and a few of them will be brainy and interesting, and there might be one or two real gems who overlap. But the rest are virgins for a reason. IP: Logged
Sam Mc Kee Member	posted 12-01-2005 10:23 AM Girls who are into animal rights tend to be no prizes either. IP: Logged
driedwater Member	posted 12-01-2005 03:33 PM quote: Originally posted by Psion: *And that's 72 virgins, not necessarily hot babes. Oh sure, some of them might be babes, and a few of them will be brainy and interesting, and there might be one or two real gems who overlap.* But the rest are virgins for a reason. Maybe they're not being told the whole story. the "72" could also be yet-to-be born women. Technically that'd make them virgins too. Now they would have 72 babies on the way. Maybe their god is a bit of a cynic. "You thought 72 virgins was heaven? Ummm......y'know....." IP: Logged
10SNE1 Moderator	posted 12-01-2005 03:45 PM Spend all eternity with 72 virgins? Halfway to eternity and they're still virgins... at that point Abdul has to start realizing he's in hell! IP: Logged
setnahkt Member	posted 12-01-2005 08:11 PM The hur'in are suposed to be a special creation, sort of a subset of djinni, rather than human. Thus problems of perpetual viginity, compatibility, etc. should not arise. IP: Logged
Nightman Member	posted 12-02-2005 07:58 AM quote: There is a difference both qualitative and quantitative, but the difference will close in the future in my opinion. A man once asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars, she said yes. He then asked whether she would sleep with him for 20 dollars, to which she replied, What sort of a girl do you think I am? His response was, We have already established that we are merely haggling about the price. Quantitatively and qualitatively different but morally just the same. ------------------ Nightman Who doesn't usually believe everything that he sees in the media. IP: Logged
Sam Mc Kee Member	posted 12-02-2005 09:59 AM I disagree. I don't think the question of the morality of prostitution is in any way comparable to the question of the morality of terrorism. I don't dispute that there are moral absolutes, lines that we just don't cross, but I have to agree that morally--not just practically--there are qualitative and quantitative differences between animal rights terrorists and Islamic extremists. The prostitute story has been around a long time, and I never thought it made much sense. It says nothing of the woman's motivation for wanting money--If she'd do it for a million dollars but not for one, perhaps she has a sick child who desperately needs treatment she can't afford, yet the story treats her like a common whore. Is such a woman like a golddigger who marries a wealthy man and divorces him within a couple of years, taking everything he has? The later is a whore if ever there was one. And a woman who would sleep with a man for one dollar obviously wants to sleep with him anyway. Is she any different from one who wants to sleep with him but expects him to buy her dinner first? She's not sleeping with him because of or in consideration for the dinner--she obviously wants to anyway--it's just an expectation, and he's a jerk if he won't even do that much. So is she a whore? I don't dispute the moral absolute that terrorism is wrong. But there are different kinds of terrorism that are qualitatively and quantitatively different. Torching an unoccupied SUV at a dealership at night is quantitatively and qualatatively different from blowing up a bomb in a crowded marketplace. They're very different acts. IP: Logged
SPQR Moderator	posted 12-02-2005 12:05 PM I agree, Sam. My point is that the differences will be erased in the future. You can see the animal rights crowd working themselves up to mayhem and murder. IP: Logged
Nightman Member	posted 12-02-2005 03:46 PM Ok, not a sensible analogy and maybe this should be in philosophy. However, I do not agree there is any qualitative difference between ALF, IRA and Al Quaida. Maybe a quantitative difference in effect but morally I disagree that there is a difference. One of societies problems is its current inability to get to grips with this issue because it fails to understand that terrorism is a methodology, a way of pursuing your ends (whatever they happen to be) and it is a repulsive one that has no place in any civilised society (whatever the cause). Thus trying, as some attempt to distinguish between freedom fighters (those pursuing a cause you believe is just) and terrorists (those pursuing a cause with which you disagree) is to make a false distinction. Freedom fighters may or may not be terrorists it doesn't depend on what they are fighting for but the method that they are using. The aim of the terrorist is to impose their will upon society by scaring the s*t out of ordinary citizens so that put pressure on their elected representatives to capitulate, suicide bombing or blowing up SUVs is the same repulsive tactic and equally morally offensive. It also works extremely successfully which is why it is spreading like cancer within human socisty. ------------------ Nightman* Who doesn't usually believe everything that he sees in the media. IP: Logged
KGB Moderator	posted 12-03-2005 02:23 AM quote: Originally posted by Nightman: The aim of the terrorist is to impose their will upon society by scaring the s**t out of ordinary citizens so that put pressure on their elected representatives to capitulate, suicide bombing or blowing up SUVs is the same repulsive tactic and equally morally offensive. I think this is one respect in which there is a real, qualitative difference between al Quaeda and ecoterrorists. By and large, ecoterrorists are doing what you say -- trying to intimidate politicians and citizens in order to force policy changes. But I believe al Quaeda is indifferent to whether their actions effect policy changes by their victims; nothing in their pronouncements suggests that they are either seeking or anticipate any such changes. They are living out a fantasy ideology in which slaughter and terror will bring about the will of Allah, which they believe to be the annihilation of the West, and earn themselves a reward in eternity. The difference is significant. Ecoterrorists are attuned to the opinions of their targets, and this imposes some constraint on their behavior. They have killed few, if any, humans in their attacks, because of the effect on public opinion. al Quaeda shows no signs that it is constrained in any such way. Another significant difference is that it is at least theoretically possible to negotiate with ecoterrorists, however repugnant the idea. There is no negotiating with al Quaeda. I don't know but what this actually makes ecoterrorism more dangerous in the long run. Of course, it is possible that ecoterrorists will become increasingly pantheistic in their approach, so that their movement will take on some of the religious character of al Quaeda. But, at the moment, I think the distinction is still meaningful. IP: Logged
Nightman Member	posted 12-03-2005 07:35 PM I think with Al Quaida and the rest of the Islamic Jihadists, it depends on what you mean by policy changes. Clearly minor changes of policy will have no effect since the aim is the subjection of the world, by force if necessary, to Islam. In this case I would agree that quantitatively the stakes are higher than the immediate aims of the ecoterrorists. If they had the means then I suspect that the Jihadists would be happy to wage a conventional war to overthrow the 'infidels' as they did historically. However the asymetry of conventional power means that other methods need to be employed, e.g. infiltration and gradual culture change as is happening in a number of states such as Nigeria and possibly in Holland and terrorism in other places. The terrorism is also useful in preventing measures to stop the infiltration and culture change. In this country (Britain) it is already dangerous to criticise or maje jokes about our muslim friends and we only have 3% presence as yet. Perhaps I ought to go and make myself a tinfoil hat...... ------------------ Nightman Who doesn't usually believe everything that he sees in the media. IP: Logged
David Bell Member	posted 12-03-2005 08:10 PM quote: Originally posted by KGB: I think this is one respect in which there is a real, qualitative difference between al Quaeda and ecoterrorists. By and large, ecoterrorists are doing what you say -- trying to intimidate politicians and citizens in order to force policy changes. But I believe al Quaeda is indifferent to whether their actions effect policy changes by their victims; nothing in their pronouncements suggests that they are either seeking or anticipate any such changes. They are living out a fantasy ideology in which slaughter and terror will bring about the will of Allah, which they believe to be the annihilation of the West, and earn themselves a reward in eternity. The difference is significant. Ecoterrorists are attuned to the opinions of their targets, and this imposes some constraint on their behavior. They have killed few, if any, humans in their attacks, because of the effect on public opinion. al Quaeda shows no signs that it is constrained in any such way. Another significant difference is that it is at least theoretically possible to negotiate with ecoterrorists, however repugnant the idea. There is no negotiating with al Quaeda. I don't know but what this actually makes ecoterrorism more dangerous in the long run. Of course, it is possible that ecoterrorists will become increasingly pantheistic in their approach, so that their movement will take on some of the religious character of al Quaeda. But, at the moment, I think the distinction is still meaningful. I am not following this at all. I am sure that if the USA capitulated to al-quaeda, and became a muslim state, al-quaeda would stop attacking. This isn't a realistic proposition. The scale of the change that animal rights nutters and al-quaeda want is different, but they are both seeking to impose change by force; so the idea of a qualitative difference escapes me. Quantitative, sure. For the record, animal rights groups in the UK have killed people, and have fire-bombed and planted anti-personnel devices. I am with Nightman; there is precious little difference between al-quaeda, irish terrorists and animal rights nutters. The rather embarrassing exception being that until recently, it was quite all right for the US to funnel funds into irish terrorist groups. yours david IP: Logged
David Bell Member	posted 12-03-2005 08:14 PM quote: Originally posted by Nightman: In this country (Britain) it is already dangerous to criticise or maje jokes about our muslim friends and we only have 3% presence as yet. it is obviously meant to be a guarded comment, yet it is so guarded that I am not following your logic. Are you suggesting that if you make anti-muslim jokes, you may be subjected to terrorism or intimidation ? Or is it that there is a really strong PC movement which makes any comment on religious ground illegal ? yours david IP: Logged
Sam Mc Kee Member	posted 12-03-2005 08:23 PM I disagree that they would stop attacking. What do they say, and perhaps believe, they want? Totalitarian Islamic rule. Would they be satisfied? Not really. These are not people who will ever be happy. The Taliban had exactly what they supposedly wanted. Were they happy? Did they ever stop attacking their own people? Even the most devout Muslims were routinely terrorized--arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, murdered on the flimsiest of evidence of crimes they themselves often didn't even understand. Whatever "goal" they claim is an illusion. They really just want to hurt and kill people. Nothing we can do with al-Queda--not even unconditional surrender, universal conversion to Islam and acceptance of totalitarian Islamic rule--will ever satisfy them. They will always torture, murder and terrorize because that's what they want. I think that's one of the qualitative similarities between Islamic extremists and animal rights terrorists. Whatever legal guarantees of animal rights they claim to secure, whether moderate or extreme, will never, ever be enough. They'll always have more demands, not so much because they seek to advance their cause as because they seek an excuse to hurt people and the sieze more power for themselves. Like the mullahs, the animal rights kingpins are sad, angry, pitiful kings of sad, pitiful kingdoms. They just want to hurt people. IP: Logged
setnahkt Member	posted 12-03-2005 09:02 PM quote: Originally posted by Sam Mc Kee: ....They just want to hurt people.... I think I'm with Sam on this one. I see the leaders of al-Qaeda, ALF, etc. as sociopaths whose basic need is to exercise power. And what more power can you have than slaves willing to kill others and themselves for you? IP: Logged
Jeff Norman Moderator	posted 12-05-2005 04:14 PM quote: Blah, blah, blah... We have already established that we are merely haggling about the price. I have seen this attributed to Oscar Wilde, Samuel Clement, William Randal Hurst and Winston Churchill. It was supposed to have happened at some oh so clever social gathering so I do not believe the woman in question was needy in any way (it would not have been clever if she was). Of the four I think only one of them actually had the million dollars (pounds whatever). I prefer the Oscar Wilde attribution myself. IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Debunkers

Personal Safety Notice: The discussions on this site may address activities which are inherently dangerous and other activities which could be dangerous if done improperly. Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid. The management of this board has no way of assuring that any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe practices. If you choose to follow any of the "guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so we can laugh at your stupidity.

Copyright Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If you post it here, then you promise that you have the right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless this board and the staff which manages daily operations. The staff reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit if, in its judgment, your claim is not reasonable.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy, visit the Junk Science Home Page.	What is Junk Science?
	Special rules for this forum.