Comments on: Animal Rights Activist Named Alongside Bin Laden on FBI’s Terrorist List

By: The Down with King Coal Enviro Show, Part III, Tues., 6:30pm | Valley Free Radio

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:15:29 +0000

[...] is only accused of property destruction but since it was corporate property he must be part of “the number one domestic terrorist threat” in the nation, right? OK, so he’s not armed to the teeth like all those far-right militia [...]

By: Albert

Albert — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:51:59 +0000

Bomb maker = Terrorist
Associated to bomb making = Terrorist
Alleged bomb making = Innocent until proven guilty. If guilty then terrorist.
If terrorist then hang from neck until dead.

That seemed pretty simple to me.

Where do Donations to the HSUS Go?.

I love these conversations!

By: Will Potter

Will Potter — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:15:38 +0000

Sarah:
You’re absolutely right. I made sure to say “alleged” up top and left it out near the bottom. I’ve corrected it. Thanks. Will

By: easyVegan.info » Blog Archive » easyVegan Link Sanctuary, 2009-04-26

easyVegan.info » Blog Archive » easyVegan Link Sanctuary, 2009-04-26 — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:43:42 +0000

[...] Green is the New Red: Animal Rights Activist Named Alongside Bin Laden on FBI’s Terrorist List [...]

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:34:10 +0000

Will, interesting post. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I want to strongly advise everyone, including Will to please consider your words carefully when discussing cases like this. Daniel Andreas has not been convicted of anything, and in the instance that he ever does have to go to court on these charges, the activist community should be aware that everything we write and put out about him, could potentially be used against him. Further, it’s important for us not to accept the FBI’s premise of his guilt.

Will wrote:

“Enter Daniel Andreas San Diego. He hasn’t harmed anyone, and his crimes are nothing compared to Osama bin Laden and others on the list…”

I take issue with the words “his crimes” – Will, please consider re-wording this sentence. Let’s not give the Feds any more credit than they are do. Daniel Andreas has no crimes, period.

At most he’s a suspect. So, let’s at least say things like “alleged” crimes.

By: xvxdavexvx

xvxdavexvx — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:20:19 +0000

@snake:
i smell it too.
to rephrase my question:
when faced with the proposition that members of their own COULD be terrorists, why does the right to choose to deny that and even go so far as to insist that DHS apologize? instead of what the left does (as in the case of HSUS), which is to completely accept the framework and terms of the whole debate and thusly dissociate (and even offer money as a reward for capture) with the ‘terrorist fringe’ of their own?

By: Harry

Harry — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:02:00 +0000

I doubt there were actually nails used. It would be such an easy lie to fabricate, and a facilitator of such condemnation…there’s no reason whatsoever to use nails, it totally goes against what one would be trying to achieve with such an action. I smell bullshit on that one.

By: kevin

kevin — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:31:26 +0000

so what happened if we did actually commit acts of terrorism…? check our this FICTIONAL book by rick bogle of madison’s primate freedom project:

https://www.createspace.com/3375138

By: Snake

Snake — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:42:32 +0000

Naming his eating habits as a trait to watch out for seems along the same line as naming someone’s race as something to watch out for.

Middle Easterners can’t look too ‘Middle Eastern’ or they’re terrorists, right?

You’re wearing a turban? You’re a terrorist!
You’re not wearing a leather belt? You’re a terrorist!

I smell fascism.

@ xvxdavexvx: Because mainstream left doesn’t want to be associated with ‘extreme’ beliefs. No one wants to be associated with ‘terrorists.’ Not even the Humane Society…
And mainstream right doesn’t see the things listed there as ‘terrorism’ they see it as protecting their freedoms… Like bombing abortion centers, for example, somehow protects their freedom of religion, and protects their daughters from being ‘godless.’
…And because many (not all) mainstream lefties are pansies.
(Not to say that I don’t like pansies…)

By: the guess who

the guess who — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:01:21 +0000

I think the biggest mistake a person can make is to always be for or against something.

It is easy to make a strong case for direct action. Used properly, for instance by people like Rod Coronado or the myriad activists who are not caught performing liberartions or sabotages, direct action is an effective tactic.

Remember the millions of arguments you’ve had with pacifists. “Oh MLK was effective, but pacifism is just a tactic, you have to use it correctly and at the correct time!”

There are a number of valid points in this article:

1] The state is maintaining a bias toward the right
2] Daniel is not in the same league as Osama

I’ll add a couple of my own

3] Direct action is often a moral & effective choice for helping animals and the environment

4] Green activists are staring down an unfathomable wave of unethical treatment

BUT!!!

When an activist commits an act that is not going to hit a business where it hurts, namely their pocketbook but rather chooses to hit activist movements where it hurts, namely the moral high ground, we take care not to rally around them.

What is the monetary effect of a nail bomb? While this does reek of corruption, it reminds me of Consumer Freedom’s attack on PETA for euthanizing strays. It’s rotten and I don’t like it but the question is: who is to blame? Is it our opponents for making an intelligent move or ourselves for the negligence we demonstrate in setting up that move?