Joe,
My apologies, I was referring to Mr Coronado's most recent incarceration. In reference to the 1992 MSU incident, Rod was technically only convicted of aiding and abbeting the action not it's actual performance, his subsequent activities could be seen to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour that is essential non-violent.

"You want me and everyone else to do the same."

No, actually, if you read my post more carefully you would know that I don't want everybody to blindly think and do like me. What I would prefer in an ideal world is that people would choose to invest much more time into research and thought - to begin to think more critically and independently (particularly *before* they subscribe to a philosophy/belief or take action based on underdeveloped ideas).

I find most people who take up MDA have barely even accomplished the bare minimum of reading (or thought) necessary to even understand the practice of nonviolence and get an idea of its failures and successes in history. If the average Joe forsakes watching Monday Night Football because of events happening around him in the current climate, and he suddenly has some vague idea or receives a tiny glimmer of awareness that something is not right in the world, his brain snaps, and immediately he wants to wield a brick to make sure "something gets done." And, on the other side of the coin, I find many (not all) of the folks who are most vocal about calling the uninitiated (those new to the fringe) to arms are usually privileged indifferent individuals sitting back, snug as a bug, in a cozy armchair with a pretentious plaque hanging conspicuously on the wall behind them. Take away the brick-wielding neophyte recruits and the smug, narcissistic philosophy-loving leaders, and mostly of what you'll have left are the incarcerated. I realize I'm generalizing to a certain extent - there are a few exceptions to the rule - but for the most part, there it is in a nutshell. My point? Most of these people do not bother to invest time into properly learning about the nonviolent approach before they either act or selfishly call others to join their war. I don't want people to do as I do. I want people to research/read both sides of an issue and make choices based on a comprehensive thought process.

If I were to seriously answer any of the three questions you offer, we would need to have a discussion first about what terrorism consists of. And what constitutes nonviolent civil disobedience, which I am sure we disagree on. As well as what makes for a violent act, which I am sure we also disagree on. So I'm sorry I can't just come to conclusions as simply as you do.

My post was not a rant about illegal tactics. It was specific criticism that your blog does not allow for a discussion on the efficacy and legitimacy behind the various acts of advocacy that the govt. deems terrorism. Therefore your blog is missing a big piece of the picture.

But that is to be expected, because the main point of your blog operates on the underlying premise that MDA is acceptable and good (the links in the sidebar back that up) and forbids anyone to challenge that shaky foundation. Disallowing thinking persons to challenge the shaky foundation of your beliefs upon which your house stands pretty much insures that the rickety structure will continue standing indefinitely, doesn't it? Sure is convenient anyway. Funny, how the govt/corps that you so oppose operate on that same principle.

Regardless of my opinions, you will do what you will with this blog. I was merely pointing out weaknesses in the foundation. I think there is some merit in creating awareness about the unjust stigma of "terrorism" heaped on those who don't deserve it (those who adhere to effective and conscientious tactics). I just think that you are missing a big piece of the puzzle, and I find that somewhat irresponsible and disappointing given your high level of capability, intelligence, and influence.

More generalizations and condemnation, and you refuse to answer even one of the specific, simple questions I offered. You see no difference between vandalizing an SUV and 9/11? You see nothing wrong with labeling MLK's tactics as "terrorism" under the AETA? You have no problem with the chilling effect this is having on lawful, peaceful groups? That's disgusting.

There are too many sweeping attacks in your last comment to try be respond point by point, but one thing that you have said twice now is that the links on the sidebar of this site is that "the underlying premise" of this site is that illegal action is "acceptable and good." A couple quick corrections:
1. Point to an instance, ever, of me writing on this site in support of direct action or illegal activity. Name ONE.
2. The links are to prisoners. This site deals with many ongoing court cases, and I frequently write about a recurring cast of characters. I can't think of anything more appropriate to have links to than the sites of those I'm reporting on. Further, linking to a site doesn't imply support. I also like to general political blogs and organizations that are loosely related to these issues.

Will's quote: "I can see why you and John get a long so well."
Though it's not of any great consequence, your quote may give the false appearance that John and I are buddies that hang out at the coffee shop. Perhaps I have been remiss in not addressing him by his full user name. In any case, for the record, I do not know him, and to my knowledge I have never read anything written by this person before today. My compliments to his posts still stand, however.

It's easy to just dismiss anyone who attempts to get to the root of the matter as "missing the point." I have followed the actions of the Bush administration going back to early in the year 2001 when the Bush admin set up a regulation that his political protesters be cordoned off far away from him and not be allowed to demonstrate anywhere near his royal presence. Even before 9/11 forces were being set into place behind the scenes to curtail citizens from speaking up, making a stand, and most especially from being heard. Many of the people who have suddenly "woken up" these past few years and are now up in arms about their loss of freedoms were patriotically waving US flags and bowing down to Bush back in 2001, 2002, etc. My point is that I have long been aware and informed about the way the "war on terrorism" has been effectively used to muffle those who try to speak the truth. I have only the utmost respect for activists who stand up to the forces that be (in a nonviolent fashion) - and particularly those that have done so from *the beginning*. But that doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick, or Harriet who claims to be an activist is doing good for the movement. Nor is every action an activist carries out a good and meaningful act just because it is done in the name of that for which they are fighting for, whether it be animals, the environment, etc. Each act must be judged upon its own individual merits. It's the motivation of people like you, Will, that I actually question. You seem to throw a protective blanket over all activists (good or bad, effective or ineffective) and point fingers at the "system" without giving any in depth thought to the efficacy of the actions overall. The system has long been wrong...but the majority of Americans have been wrong as well. Not only the Americans who could have stood up to the Bush-Industrial complex years ago instead of sitting around watching Monday Night Football or maxing out their credit cards at the local mall. But also culpable are those who decided that a matchstick, pick lock, or brick was the answer to the solutions they seek.

Green is not the new red. If your rhetoric is to be believed, RED IS THE NEW GREEN.

I'll take my leave after posting this. This blog lacks adequate discussions regarding the distinctions between ends and means, which is an essential part of any issues regarding activism, including the govt's response, portrayal, and final treatment of various approaches to activism. Instead, this blog is simply a bullheaded, empty crusade against the govt. (activists good, govt bad, arghh!) without any thorough or comprehensive thought processes to back it up. This site is not going to accomplish much except rallying and riling up those who are already ready to take up arms for their underdeveloped ideas. I'm sure General Best's minions (all 15 of them) are your biggest fans. Taking a look at all the links on this blog in the sidebar, it's really more than obvious that you strongly support MDA and activists/groups that use such tactics. So you are not being truthful when you say that debates about the efficacy of actions by MDA activists and groups "do not matter." Apparently they matter much to you, since you seem to be backing up their campaigns, missions, and actions. And anyone who questions these tactics is apparently "missing the point," right?

Jeannie:
I get it. Really, I do. You condemn illegal direct action and property destruction. You want me and everyone else to do the same. I have never said my views on those tactics on this site, but, for a moment, let's say I completely agree with you. That being said:

1. Even if you condemn those tactics, are they the same as flying planes into buildings, building WMDs, and sending anthrax through the mail?
2. Even if you condemn those tactics, do you think non-violent civil disobedience is "terrorism"? (Which, under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, it is).
3. Even if you condemn those tactics, do you not think the sweeping use of "terrorism" rhetoric, against both illegal tactics and First Amendment activity, is having a chilling effect on free speech?

If you want to post another rant against illegal tactics, and accuse me of supporting them because I have links to prisoners on my sidebar, please do it someplace else. If you'd like to respond to the questions above and address the content of this site, please do.

Best,
Will

jeannie: Just because my opinion is different from yours does not mean it has no substance.

Stephen, get your facts straight. Rod spent 57 months in prison for an arson at research facilities at Michigan State University.

After reading the responses one after another, I realized the only person making any sense at all is John.

I find it sad that the author of this blog would allow so much attention to be lavished on Joe, who is obviously a troll without anything of substance to say. But John, who posts well written intelligent responses with many years of thought and care behind his words is told that he is missing the point. I can only imagine that Joe is allowed to have his say because it drives up traffic to the site through the anger that he provokes.

I understand what this site is trying to convey. But no point is worth the trouble of arguing if a logical cohesive argument does not back up the point. One cannot just argue the end result of the crime (the degree of punishment) logically without also examining the the crime itself (the factors behind it, the legitimacy of it, the motivation behind it, etc.). I.e., I think this blog only presents half the story if it only discusses the injustice of the degree of the punishment in depth without discussing in depth whether the crime was worth committing in the first place.

Thank you John for your solid argument. Your examples were excellent.

Jeannie:

I can see why you and John get a long so well. Once again, as I've said a hundred times now, these endless debates about whether property destruction is "violence" and whether it is effective DO NOT MATTER. The government and corporations are labeling a broad range of activity, including First Amendment activity, as "terrorism." Spending time condemning the activists rather than absurd "terrorism" rhetoric is indeed missing the point.

I really question the motivations of folks like you and John who seem to think it's the activists who should be under scrutiny, because you don't think the "crime was worth committing," rather than corporations, politicians, the FBI and others using the War on Terrorism to push their political agenda. By all means, debate tactics until the cows come home. Meanwhile, the government is going to continue labeling more and more people as "terrorists."

Joe,
Rod Coronado=not an arsonist. Get your facts straight. His 'crime' seems to have been careless talk.

*sigh*: According to testimony in the PETA animal cruelity case the peta employees told workers just that. They told Tonya Northcott of the Ahoskie Animal Hospital they would have no problems finding homes for a mother cat and kittens turned over to them (PETA). ALL were KILLED later that day by PETA.

The PETA employees then went to Barry Anderson a Bertie County Animal Control Officer and took from him 2 young dalmations and a terrier and told him they would do everything to find homes for these dogs. The PETA employees injected the dogs with euthanasia in the PETA van in front of Officer Barry Anderson. He asked what they(PETA) was injected them with and was told the dogs were being sedated for the trip. In fact PETA was KILLING the dogs in front of the man they just told they would do everything to find homes for.

*sigh* for someone who worked at PETA you seem to know very little about what goes on there.

If Rod is a hero why not make every arsonist a hero?

Joe and Galashelties; I don't believe that the PETA employees in question told anyone, the shelters or the vet, that they were going to find homes for all the animals they took in. I think the shelters and the vet, contrary to what they said in front of the television cameras, knew that PETA could not find homes for them all. Yes, I know that Ingrid Newkirk was an ACO; so what? ACO's are awesome. Finally, Galashelties, the counties PETA works in NC are hellholes for animals. When I worked at PETA, we delivered free doghouses in NC (http://www.peta.org/feat/cap) and there were dogs and cats running around everywhere. Their bodies also littered the sides of the county roads; I had never seen anything like it. I doubt you ever had to deal with the large number of homeless dogs and cats PETA does. BTW, I paid a guy $20 dollars for a puppy he was keeping in a rubbermaid bin in his backyard in the middle of winter; a piece of glass covered the top. That dog rode back to Hampton Roads on the lap of one of my colleagues and lives with the PETA staffer and her other dogs till this day.
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters...

I agree greentangle; Rod is a hero. That's why I sent him books and money for food and such while he was in jail.

"why would the police officers lie?"

Oh my, must stop laughing!

Does someone seriously not know that police officers routinely lie?

And I think most people here, including me, are more likely to consider Coronado a hero rather than a terrorist.

*sigh*, I only know what address PETA put on their forms, I can not be responsible for others clerical errors. If PETA does not run a shelter why do they go around to other shelters and vet offices taking in animals and telling the workers there they will find homes for them?

I'm shuddering at this, but I have to support Joe (ugh!). Since PETA submit figures to VDACS as required under law they must, ipso facto, operate a shelter in some form. Even if it is a euthanasia facility (as a whole ecology measure euthanasia is probably the best solution to urban pet overpopulation). It is good however to emphsize the PETA is NOT soley or even primarily a shelter, their brief is much wider than that. Simply put it is to further the realization that all species are our fellow citizens on planet earth, not property, not resources to be exploited. If anyone that I contradict myself supporting animal euthanasia, I also support human euthanasia, it a quality of life thing.

Will:

Please don't fabricate things and then attribute them to me. My statement is posted above and your attempt to twist things doesn't do anything for your credibility.

"sigh": You are correct. Felony charges against Hinkle and Cook were dropped to 8 counts of misdeamor cruelty and littering. They were found guilty of littering and sentenced to 10 days in jail (suspended), $1000 each in fines, 12 months of supervised probation and ordered to pay over $5K in restitution. The defense argued that the prosecution was "out to get PETA" but why would the police officers lie? The shelter employees? The vet office staff? Are you so totally blinded by PETA's mantra? Do you even know about Newkirk's background as an ACO in the Washington, DC area?

I noticed you made no comment about the tens of thousands of dollars donated by PETA supporters to help animals that ended up in the pockets of lawyers defending domestic terrorist, Rod Coronado.

I am well aware that euthanized animals end up in rendering plants and/or landfills. Does this mean you condone lying to obtain animals with the intent of killing them?

I have been involved with rescue for over 30 years and not once have I euthanized a dog simply because I couldn't find an adoptive home and I don't have the $4M in donations that PETA receives. If an elderly dog is otherwise healthy, I won't euthanize it for my convenience. There are homes available for older dogs; I have several families that are only interested in adopting dogs over 10 years of age. We have a network of foster homes to help when our numbers get up. We work with the local no-kill shelters and help ease the burden when our numbers are lower and theirs are higher. Fortunately for these animals, PETA never got their hands on them.

Galashelties:
I'm "fabricating" things? I quoted your comment!

Look Joe, PETA won a court battle to end the gassing of animals in Georgia's shelters:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/take_that...

Check this out as well:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/victory_u...

Looks to me that PETA does a great deal of good for dogs and cats (e.g. the animals you seemingly don't eat).

You are correct Will, that is PETA's HQ and there is no shelter there. I know, as I worked in that building for many years. PETA doesn't run a shelter. I am not sure why Joe cannot understand that.

Will, Thats the address that Daphna Nachminovitch put on the form, so if its wrong or a lie its her fault.

Anonymous, The address for the shelter PETA has put on the form stating what animals PETA has taken in and KILLED is, 501 Front Street Norfolk Va.

Joe, your investigative reporting skills leave much to be desired. That's the address of PETA's HQ.

Let PETA's work do the talking:

http://www.petatv.com/inv.html

Maybe Joe will learn something and end his cruel, violent and hypocritical diet.

"Galashelties" wrote: "recent cruelty convictions of PETA employees that were caught red-handed obtaining animals from shelters and vet offices with the promise of finding adoptive homes while they were, in fact, killing then and then hiding the dead bodies in other people’s dumpsters in the middle of the night."

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO PETA DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION WERE AQQUITED OF THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CRUELTY CHARGES. If they had been found guilty of cruelty for euthanizing animals, then every shelter worker in the State of NC could be charged as well. They did in fact, dump the dead animals which Ingrid Newkirk condemned. That said, where do you think dead dogs and cats from this nation's shelters end up, in graveyards? Give me a break; they are sent to rendering plants or landfills.

Here is why PETA rocks: http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp

HATERS, GO AWAY.

Joe - perhaps you could let us know the addresses of the shelters which peta operates. Evidence - rather than just saying they run a shelter, would go a long way.

Regardless of where the PETA quotes were cut and pasted from, the FACT remains that these WERE statements made by PETA employees or PETA officers.

Secondly, PETA supports terrorism by funding the defense of terrorists like Rodney Coronado who was convicted and jailed for firebombing research labs at the University of Minnesota.

Thirdly, as for the assertion that CCF is a "front" for Phillip Morris, this is quite inaccurate.

CCF was originally known as the Guest Choice Network, organized in 1995 by Richard Berman, then executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company. Phillip Morris made an initial $600K contribution and was originally intended to defend the restaurant and hospitality industries against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists ..." Philip Morris donated $2.95 million to GCN between 1995 and 1998.

In November 2001, GCN launched ActivistCash.com, which gathered information from IRS documents and other reports, revealing the sources of funding and activities of groups it opposed, like PETA and HSUS.

It wasn't until 2002 that the Guest Choice Network became the Center for Consumer Freedom. The reason GCN gave for the change was "the anti-consumer forces [were] expanding their reach beyond restaurants and taverns [and] going into your communities and even your homes," claiming that a broader organization was needed to act "wherever they try to take away your consumer freedom."

By December, 1996, supporters included Alliance Gaming, a slot machine manufacturer, Anheuser-Busch, Bruss Company, Cargill Processed Meat Products, Davidoff, Harrah's, Overhill Farms, Philip Morris, and Standard Meat Company. Also included in CCF's 100+ corporate sponsors is Coca-Cola, Wendy's, Tyson Foods, and Pilgrim's Pride.

And for those defending PETA's "killing" of those rescues that they claim to be freeing from abuse by euthanasia, here are the facts:

According to figures provided to the VDAC, year after year PETA has killed more animals than 80% of the animal control shelters in the entire State of Virginia. In 2003 the Norfolk SPCA was able to find homes for over 70% of its animals while the Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66%. During that very same year, PETA was only able to find homes for 14 percent of the animals they "rescued". Please remember that these are just the deaths that PETA is willing to admit to. The recent cruelty convictions of PETA employees that were caught red-handed obtaining animals from shelters and vet offices with the promise of finding adoptive homes while they were, in fact, killing then and then hiding the dead bodies in other people's dumpsters in the middle of the night.

I cannot see how anyone can support PETA in general and Newkirk in particular.

@Galashelties:
I like how you say calling CCF a front for alcohol, tobacco, and meat industries is "quite inaccurate," and then go on to give some great details of how that's true.

Stephen and gereal, I guess what fascinates me so is your mindless defense of PETA when there is a mountain of proof that PETA runs a shelter and KILLS thousands of animals. How did Ingrid Newkirk (AKA Hitler 2) brainwash you two when you have no brains?

Joe, calm down and take a deep breath, or the rubber band that power ou excuse for a brain will snap. We don't care what you think (if we can call what you do thinking). I'm not a PETA member, I think there views are somewhat extreme, but as long as CCF (liars, thieves and despoilers) oppose them I wil support them.

Oh Joe, you hurt my feelings. Since you are a big time investigator, go visit PETA and see that they don't run a shelter. In the meantime, re-read all of your entries on this site so that you can see your rude and ignorant comments...beyotch.

Check out Penn & Teller Bullsh*t season 2 episode 1. It shows PETA members holding PETA signs outside an LA shelter that uses euthanasia .

PETA has NEVER protested shelters that kill animals - NEVER. PETA continually speaks out against so-called "no-kill" shelters:

http://blog.peta.org/archives/no_kill_shelters/

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-nokillshelters...

I challenge you hypocrite (e.g. one who loves some animals like dogs and cats, but eats others) to show me one article, news story, etc that shows PETA has ever protested shelters that kill animals.

*sigh* I don't think anyone at PETA knows about the long term affects of shelter life on dogs and cats either, PETA kills them so soon after taking them they never have a chance to see it.

Yes I eat meat, but I am not a hypocrite. PETA protest shelters which kill animals(not as many as PETA does) yet see's nothing wrong when they(PETA) kills.

In world were only PETA is many animals would still die and PETA would be killing them all.

getreal, Last time PETA RUNS A SHELTER!!!!

I'm very glad we are opposites
I care for the environment and have dedicated my career to protecting it.

YOU- are a whinny little shitbag who most likely lives in his mothers basement and thinks he is helping the environment by reading a blog and making rude comments.

I have tracked down polluters who were then forced to pay for clean up and pay fines which went back into environmental programs.

YOU- think playing world of warcraft online is a job and do not contribute anything to the world.

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA believes that it is unethical to cage and warehouse unwanted dogs and cats when there is little or no chance they will be adopted into safe and loving homes. If you know anything about the long-term effects of shelter "life" on dogs and cats, you would know that it is extremely detrimental to their physical and psychological health and well-being. If people were coming to PETA to adopt dogs and cats instead of drop them off, then PETA wouldn't have to euthanize. Call any of the shelters in Hampton Roads and you will learn that they are packed to the brim with homeless dogs and cats. While it would be easier, politically speaking, for PETA to build a dog and cat zoo where dogs and cats would spend their entire lives in cages, it would be cruel and unethical. PETA works to alleviate animal suffering; euthanasia, just like it is in shelters, is one tool that is used to achieve that goal. PETA never said that it would/could save every animal in the world; therefore, its euthanasia policy is not hypocritical.

I would think Joe, that you are the one who is a hypocrite. You trash PETA for euthanizing dogs and cats, but I bet you eat cows, chickens, etc. Unlike dogs and cats who are euthanized (e.g. provided a peaceful and painless death) farmed animals are raised and killed in horribly cruel and barbaric conditions.

As for your having "had to kill" animals "out of need for human safety" I guess you are right. Those beavers and geese can be really, really dangerous.

Finally, a world filled with people who are the opposite of you, would be a great one; while not perfect, it would be a place where animals were allowed to live their lives in peace.

I guess that gun makes up for your little dick. Just because PETA may report to VDACS doesn't mean they run an actual shelter. They also spay/neuter thousands of dogs and cats a year, but I guess that doesn't fit into your anti-PETA propaganda. I am the opposite of you - whaaaaa! Be afraid, be very afraid!

Dear Getreal, PETA DOES run a shelter and because they do so they need to report to VDACS each year with their intake records. According to Virginia law an animal surrendered to a shelter which is not injured or disabled beyond medical help must be held for five 5 days before euthanasia can be used.

I do not kill animals for a living at taxpayer expense, my salary comes out of the Pittman-Roberts fund. Sometimes in the course of doing my job I have had to kill, but it was always a last resort and out of need for human safety.

I am not sure how or why reason does not work but if you are an example the opposite of me then the world is fucked.

If you or someone like you were to try at give me a "good beating" you had better bring friends and alot of ammo. I carry a .45 all the times and I know how to use it.

Joe, you are a fucking idiot. PETA is not a shelter. Further, the animals PETA gets are surrendered by their stupid and useless humans; as a result, they don't need to hold them five days. I believe you kill animals for a living (at taxpayer expense) so you should just shut the fuck up. Finally, you are a prime example of how reason doesn't work, which is why people like you deserve a good beating; it's the only thing you understand.

PETA has given money to groups such as the ALF and ELF. Both groups have committed terrorist acts in this country, you are a terrorist if you willingly give money to a known terrorist group.

As many people have already responded to you, repeatedly: that's a load of garbage. There is no ALF or ELF to give money to, Joe, because they exist only on paper. There is no office, no secretary, no treasurer. This rumor is based on PETA having donated to the legal defense funds of activists.

It's a very sad, and scary, day when donating to lawful, legal defense counsel is equated with "willingly giving money to a terrorist group."

Joe, you're totally missing the point.

Whether PETA sucks or not is irrelevant, the point is it is a large NGO that does nothing but provide literature and raise money for animal issues. Calling them terrorists is absurd.

go to VDACS...all shelters must submit records.

Sources for the kill rates of other shelters? Why the silence on this matter, just unsupported assertions?

Stephen, The Center for Consumer Freedom uses PETAs own records which PETA must submit to VDACS each year outlineing how many animals they took in, species, and action taken (KILLED is very popular at PETA).

Unlike you who seems to have Ingrid Newkirks fist up your ass controling what you say and do (much like most PETA supporters) I have no such controllers. Other shelters deal with same problems the PETA shelter deals with except one. Most other shelters which take in as many or more animals than PETA does and have a far less KILL rate than PETA don't have a 30 million dollar anual budget like PETA does.

Joe, where you see hypocrisy most would see necessary compromise. It must be so wonderful for you, all you have to do is parrot your party line without the effort of firing a single synapse in independent thought. How much do your controllers pay you to shill? or are you a willing dupe?

Most of the animals that pass through PETA's hands are unwanted, abandoned by there owners who don't give a damn what happens to them. Most conventional shelters are doggie death row, your figures are fantasy, outright lies. Cite your sources, and no, the Centre for Consumer Deception does not count asa credibel source

Phil, I am not the one whose blog argues the FBI informants railroad activists by convincing them to engage in unlawful activities. I think my comments were, in this case, very on point with regards to this blog. If the FBI is infiltrating groups (as this blog makes plain) and if the FBI is trying to get activists to engage in unlawful and violent acts then why is it wrong to suggest to activists that the person who is sitting at their meeting suggesting that they should all go burn something down is probably the FBI or Pinkerton spook.

Again, I am confused by the banter here. Will writes that the FBI is infiltrating groups but you say "don't worry if there is someone at your meeting who wants your group to engage in unlawful and violent acts, to suggest that person is FBI is 'snitch-jacketing.'" So if we have to ignore the obvious, how are activists to protect themselves from the FBI or corporate insider?

What possible good can come from ignoring the obvious? More activists arrests perhaps?

I am beginning to think that there is no point to this blog at all except to hurl insults and to put more activists at risk. Again, I can't believe that Will is silent when people like you write stuff suggesting that we ignore the obvious and, once again, advocate for arson.

I'm not coming back here. This is pointless.

and now you're snitch-jacketing. I'm so glad you only exist on the internet, john.

And yes, the point of this site is that lawful activists are being called terrorists to chill free speech, whether arson is involved is irrelevant.

Fredo, you are right I could not do the work PETA does, I can not be that much of a hypocrite. PETA has come under fire for breaking several laws that deal with shelters. PETA has got pet owners to willingly surrender animals without having the owner sign a form stating they know PETA will kill the animal surrendered. PETA has taken and used drugs into other states they are not licensed for. PETA has not kept animals the mandatory 5 days before they are euthenized. PETA has lied to shelters and told them they would find homes for the animals given to them, only to KILL the animals in the PETA van in the parking lot. PETA workers would then dump the animals they killed in dumpsters at malls rather than cremate them as the law required. PETA has an over 90% KILL rate where most shelters that call themselves kill shelters have about a 35% kill rate. Quite frankly, you and all who support PETA are either blind or brain dead if you can't see the hypocrisy that is PETA.

Ms. Newkirk's point, Joe, is that dogs and cats would have been better off if they had not been domesticated. Seeing that millions of dogs and cats are euthanized every year and seeing that tens of thousands of others are used in cruel and useless experiments every year and seeing that thousands of others are being fought, starved, abused, living on chains in backyards, etc she is RIGHT! Of course, dogs and cats were domesticated so PETA and others have been forced to deal with the suffering others created. In so doing, PETA staffer take in animals, adopt animals and euthanize; just like shelters do. You Joe, are so out of touch with reality it's scary. The idea that PETA could find homes for all the sick, injured and abused animals they save from suffering shows how ignorant you are. Quite frankly, you are just a big mouth who wouldn't last a day doing the hard work PETA does; take a look: http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-justice_for_sta...

Greentangle I have posted a piece on my blog regarding pacifism http://burnedbookspublishing.blogspot.com/2009/... and I have bookmarked your blog entry from your link above. I would certainly be glad to expound on my opinions in more depth but we should probably do that either on my blog or yours as talking about this seems to bother Will and misses the point of this blog entirely.

I will say that most people do not practice active nonviolence.

I will also say that, based on my experience in activist circles since the mid-1980s, the people who are the loudest and strongest proponent for a violent approach are the one who are actually working for the government or the corporations. The government has no interest in an activist community adopting active nonviolence because then when they arrest us or call us terrorists their claims seem so farfetched. The government depends on activists rejecting the nonviolent approach because then repression can reach a whole new level and society will accept that repression without question. That's just my opinion, but when the FBI puts activists on the stand for planning some attach it is usually the government agent within the group who was pushing the other members to carry out the attack and it is usually the government agent within the group who was buying the books, the chemicals and explosives, and paying for people to travel and make plans.

Any group who has a very active member who is trying to rush the group to take some violent action should kick that member out because they are probably the spook. Read any of Will's blog posts on how activists were railroaded by the FBI if you don't think this is true.

I will read your blog post later today and reply on your blog. Thanks for your post.

greentangle, PETA KILLS over 90% of the animals they take in. Don't tell me they couldn't find homes for some of them they would rather them killed than in human homes.

*sigh*, when you worked at PETA did you ever listen to Hitler...I mean Ingrid Newkirk about pet ownership? Here are 2 quotes from her. Read them and tell me PETA is still for pet ownership.

“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
— Harper's, Aug 1988

John, I understand your point and it would be nice if human nature worked that way. Honestly, I think a world of nonviolence and mutual respect and peace and love is an irrelevant fantasy whether it's preached by you or AR vegans. We know folks like CCF and the government and military and animal industries aren't going to bother preaching it, and they're not going to change their ways if you send them a nice email.

Which isn't to say that I think arson is a particularly effective tool either, more because of numbers and power than because I oppose it on any moral grounds--I think it's far more moral to burn down a building where animal experimentation occurs than it is to perform the animal experimentation. I once wrote a column on this subject of violence and non-violence after reading a book on John Brown and I've plugged it into my link.

You've written a couple times that there must be a better way--care to share it and its results?

The Joe wrote and quote: In fact PETA would rather an animal be killed over adoption (”Euthanasia is the kindest gift to a dog or cat unwanted and unloved” Ingrid Newkirk).

Duh. If a dog or cat is adopted, it isn't unwanted and unloved. Every shelter which euthanizes animals obviously agrees with that quote--it doesn't make it their preference.

So Will, here you go again, another opportunity. Arson is not violence according to Matt. Of course, we all know I think it is, but then that misses the point of the web page. So is the point of the web page to say that arson is not violence?

arson is not violence. its says alot about this country that someone could punch someone in the face and get community service, while someone else thinks about destroying property and gets 20 years.

Great Phil, enlighten me, what is the point? Thanks for the cross jab, what kind of world are you trying to create?

you're missing the point.

can someone get this guy a cross to get on?

No, Will, I am not because you will engage in the discussion about tactics when I suggest that arson is wrong. In that case you say I miss the point of the web page. So why is saying that arson is wrong missing the point and saying that arson is acceptable not missing the very same point?

I do fundamentally see a divide in the world between the people who assert that they have the right, no more than the right, the obligation, to use whatever means they deem necessary to combat whatever they claim to be evil - and - those of us who assert there must be another way. I do not say if you are not with me then you are against me, I say, if the choice continues to be a violent response to the people we disagree with then the solution that is produced will not be the solution we want - that is if the solution we want is mutual respect and peace and love. Violence will not produce that outcome. But if that is not the outcome that one seeks then choosing a violent path may be the most expedient way to accomplish ones goals.

I, long ago, choose the nonviolent path. I do not consider the people who choose another path to be against me. But if they think they will accomplish a peaceful end through violent means I think I am right to caution them that it won't work.

If one were to visit PETA's HQ in Norfolk, they would see at least a half dozen cats (rescued from the streets of that city) and numerous dogs; at PETA, staffers are allowed to bring their companion animals to work. When I worked there, I brought my dog to work so I know. This refutes the claim that for PETA, companion animals are a "no no."

Dave, having worked at PETA to save countless animals from cruelty (e.g. chained and starving dogs, starving horses, etc), I take offense at your claim that PETA doesn't "do much to help animals." Many of those at PETA, literally work day and night to alleviate animal suffering. Have you never looked at their investigations, the work they do in the field, etc? It's hard to fathom how you came up with such a cruel and unfair statement.

As for CCF, they are the ones who are dangerous. I wouldn't put it past them to vandalize PETA's new office in DC. If I worked in that office and took my dog to work, I would be sure he/she didn't eat anything from in front of the bldg. I wouldn't put it past ccf to throw out poisoned food. They are sick, cruel and depraved people. A number of years ago, someone carved "ALF" into PETA's "sad circus elephant" statue which was on display in Dupont Circle. While one could hardly see these three tiny letters, ccf "happened" to notice them and put out a press release about it. The idea that PETA would carve "ALF" into their own statue, which cost them a pretty penny, is absurd and nonsensical. Interestingly, one of ccf's operatives was seen hovering over the statue at about that time. CCF is not above trying to set PETA and/or others they oppose, up.

Will, I get the point of the web site, you think the identifier "Terrorists" is misapplied to environmental and animal rights activists. If I did not get that or agree with that I would not bother reading your blog in the first place. I am not disputing that goal or arguing that point except to question tactics and to suggest that if one does not consider how their tactics will be perceived by the larger population there is always the risk of being misidentified. The government has a difficult time distinguishing between Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, yet among the activist community we see the differences clearly. So what may be obvious to us, as activists, when viewed by outsiders may seem muddled and less obvious. I spent months arguing with a friend in Thailand during the whole "Greenpeace rams whaling ship" incident because he kept saying that Greenpeace's violent tactics were misguided, while I kept countering that Greenpeace is a nonviolent organization and that their ship had right of way. Of course, as you very well know in these cases, once someone's mind is made up it is nearly impossible to help them see the other side.

I began my off topic post on this thread because Dave asked “Explain to me how burning down an empty building, which is an inanimate object, is violence…” I, did. Which then seemed to bother Dylan who felt like burning a building for a political reason is a more respectable endeavor then burning it because you hate black people.

What I find interesting on your blog is that while you write that "I’m not arguing whether illegal tactics should be legal, and I’m not arguing if they’re effective or if they’re moral." When people like Dave or Dylan argue that burning buildings for political reasons is OK, you, Will, seem to remain silent. If you disagree, then you should say that. Silence must be interpreted as agreement. Because when you disagree with me you certainly are vocal and proactive. You don't remain silent.

So if the point of this blog is not to advocate for burning buildings to save the animals and the planet, then one would expect you to remind these other posters that they, too, are missing the point of your blog.

But, I am flexible in that I can also accept that another point of the blog is to have a conversation about all aspects of this issue. I am willing to have a conversation and try to advocate and defend my views and I am happy when others engage and are will to also discuss their views. I understand that sometimes conversations drift a little astray because we need to establish some of the fundamentals before we know what we mean by different terms, ideas, and concepts. For example, I get that some people draw a huge distinction between burning something and blowing it up. It is good to know that there is this distinction because it can help focus the discussion in the future. I have also learned, from previous discussions, that the FBI is considered as an unreliable source when presenting evidence against activists, but is seen as a very reliable source, by folks on this blog, when presenting evidence against Al-Qaeda. That is also good to know.

It seems to me that if you are going to present a blog where people may post then at some level you, too, have accepted that the conversation will go where the conversation leads. Personally, I think I see things more clearly then Joe who posted all those cut and paste quotes from PETA folks. He seemed to be arguing that PETA was a terrorist organization. Now there is a guy who really misses the point of this blog. Of course, nobody says that to him because he is more fun to argue with and insult. What he writes just sounds crazy so we can get into a smack down with him online and that makes everyone feel good. I won't engage in smack down tactics with the likes of Joe because there is no way to win. Joe won't change his mind, and Joe does not really care what PETA is or what PETA isn't. Joe is just happy making people angry so this blog provides him with the adrenaline jolt he needs. I am willing to engage in a serious discussion, and I won't sling insults, and people seems to get really upset at what I write merely because I am willing to assert that burning down an empty building is violent.

John,
You made many claims in your very lengthy comment. The one that disturbs me the most is this:

"When people like Dave or Dylan argue that burning buildings for political reasons is OK, you, Will, seem to remain silent. If you disagree, then you should say that. Silence must be interpreted as agreement."

By arguing that my refusal to enter into debates about political tactics is tacit support for arson, you're buying into the exact same mentality of Bush's "with us or against us" War on Terrorism and McCarthy's "with us or against us" communist witch hunts.

I'm not playing that game.

Elaine, I went to your website and I can't beleive that you are a PETA supporter. I see you have a few pets, you do know that in a PETA world pets are a no-no? In fact PETA would rather an animal be killed over adoption ("Euthanasia is the kindest gift to a dog or cat unwanted and unloved" Ingrid Newkirk). So Elaine, how can you support PETA and be a pet owner at the same time?

@Elaine Vigneault...Afraid of the truth are you?

Dylan,

I don't know what to say. So the KKK and anti-abortion activists CAN'T use the same tactics as animal rights activists because they have a different political/social goal? Do the ends justify the means in your opinion? If your motive is racial hatred then arson is wrong, but if your motive is hatred for whatever the people inside the building are doing that is OK. So, according to your logic, it would be OK for someone to burn down PETA's offices, as long as the building was empty, and that would not be violent or a hate crime because it was PETA's choosing to be an animal rights organization. Don't you understand how crazy that logic is?

I get that pro-life extremists have sometimes targeted individuals but in other instances they have just destroyed clinic property. So in those cases, where only the property is destroyed their actions are OK?

And I only brought up 9/11 because it has been brought up before on this blog in other posts. And yes, the buildings were not empty, but if you read what I wrote I said "IF" the building were empty and missiles had been used, I asked if it would have been OK THEN under the logic being expressed here. OK so you say missiles blow things up and that is not the same as just burning them down. Sorry, I really don't see the difference. An explosion is worse than merely an arson? Splitting some might fine hairs here. But OK if you want to go that route you certainly can.

You know, I get that people in the movement feel wronged when the government assigns the label of terrorist to their actions. And I get that people who have done much worse are sometimes not treated as poorly as other people who have done less. The justice system has never been about justice. What I don't understand is how people can feel so entitled to burn things down just because their beliefs tell them that the thing is wrong or the people behind the thing are wrong. I sell and publish radical books and people, since the beginning of time, have always taken it upon themselves to burn the books that offend them. Its just property, right? Nobody is killed by burning some radical books, right? It's still wrong! Just because you disagree with another person, or an institution, does not entitle you to destroy what that person is working on or to burn that institution to the ground. If it did, we'd be living in a pile of ashes. Because everyone finds something offensive. I think the Catholic Church's stance on gay priests is offensive and I think it terribly offensive how that institution handled the child abuse cases. But I don't think I have the right to burn Catholic Churches to the ground. I think the banking system is terribly offensive, as is consumer capitalism, but I don't think arson is the solution. I think the battle over evolution in the classroom is insulting to science and common sense, and harms our kids when we teach creationism as a viable alternative, but I would never dream of burning creationist text books.

Come on people, are we not better than this? Can't we fight for what we believe in without stooping to the level of two-bit thugs? Anyone can burn shit up, you don't have to be very bright to do that. Is there no one who reads this blog who thinks there is a better way to protest?

John:
It all of your comments you condemn tactics, and argue with other commenters about historical examples, but you keep missing the entire point of this website. I'm not arguing whether illegal tactics should be legal, and I'm not arguing if they're effective or if they're moral. I'm arguing that labeling people as terrorists for political reasons, when their actions do not come close to any reasonable person's idea of terrorism, violates checks and balances, prohibits fair trials, and has a chilling effect on First Amendment activity.

"The concerns of PETA members and supporters are their own" Except when those concerns are to threaten and intimidate those who do not want to follow the peta doctrine.

Will,
I'd ban or block "Joe" if I were you.
You don't deserve Joe's harassment. And it's not your duty to provide him with space to spew his anti-animal-advocate BS. He can start his own free blog at a number of other websites.

PETA isn't a "who" it is a "what" it doesn't have independent sentience or volition. The concerns of PETA members and supporters are their own, for my part it is concern for the compasionate treatment of our fellow travellers on Spaceship Earth (I miss the 60's), sometimes our brothers may need correction, we may get our hands dirty, but it is necessary.

Sorry, not Dave, that other guy, John Storhm.

My apologies to Dave.

Dave,

The KKK burning an African-American church is a hate crime against a specific group of people who are not black by choice, but by birth. The vivisectors and murders being targeted by animal rights activists choose to use animals in their experiments even though it is unsafe and unscientific because ANIMALS ARE NOT HUMANS.

Many cases where pro-life extremists have targeted clinics have harmed and killed people because it wasn't during the "middle of the night." Many are targetting people, not property or financial structures.

Bringing up 9/11 is a terrible example. Again, there WERE people inside. If it were hit with a missile instead of a plane, that would be an explosion, not just a fire.

The bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory by American military forces killed a man and wounded ten others. Another terrible example because people WERE targeted and killed/wounded.


Homeland Security states that animal rights groups like ALF and ELF are the biggest terrorists threats to America, while Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City Bombing is only considered to be an "angry citizen."

Tom , if you knew who peta is you would know that peta's only concern is peta. It wouldn't matter who moves in next to them or where they move if peta could do something to gain attention to themselves they will do it. If ingrid needs some dirty work done she will have her buddies at ALF do it.

Joe,

No I don't. I'm just hoping I might guess and get it right. Why do you ask?

Joe,

You said:

"Second, just because I found those quotes at ActivistCash doesn’t change the fact that they are true quotes from top Peta people and supporters."

then...

"Jack, most of the quotes that I cut and pasted (from everyones reaction I must be the only one on the internet that has ever cut and pasted) were from PETA top brass not its supporters."

A little clarification might be helpful because 6 of 9 were attributable to PETA bureaucrats, and one of them wasn't a threat at all. I'm just confused because you changed the emphasis when it was convenient.

I hope PETA sends out a letter letting everyone know that some of the funders of CCF are engaging in "consumerist terrorism". Only a deeply indoctrinated fool would believe the silly notion that freedom and liberty comes from consumer choice. Not to mention the fact that no one who's actually educated in the subject would ever agree unless, say, they're on the payroll of a corporate front group.

Also, I don't think that, by any stretch of your fanciful imagination, Joe, helping with legal defense for someone accused of a crime is "funding terrorism". By that "logic" I would have to conclude that anytime anyone gives money to a legal defense fund supports the crime of the accused. And no, it doesn't matter that PETA's "top brass" have openly expressed support for violence. Am I anticipating your response correctly? That was a "preemptive strike". You know, real terrorism. Stop funding terror with your taxes, Joe. It's very unbecoming.

Dave asked: "Explain to me how burning down an empty building, which is an inanimate object, is violence..."

Dave, does this mean when the KKK burns a black church or the anti-abortion folks torch a women's health clinic in the middle of the night that these are OK actions that we should, as a society accept, as merely acts of political speech? If the twin towers were empty on 9/11 and if they were brought down by missiles rather than planes would those actions still not be thought of as acts of war? I am certain that the people in Sudan would think that it was violent when America to sent a cruise missile into a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998.

Does it really matter that a building was empty at the time it was burned? And how does anyone really know if a building is completely empty before they set fire to it? I am certain that activists believe the building to be empty but if their plan is to set fire to the structure they are willing to risk harming other people because they know that the fire could spread, or there could be explosive materials someplace in the building that could cause an explosion, and they certainly know that police and fire officials will have to risk their lives to bring the blaze under control. So the minute a plan is hatched to burn an empty building the planner have accepted and agreed to a certain amount of risk to human and animal life. Because let's be real, how many mice living in the walls of these buildings do not escape the blaze, or how many birds nesting in the rafters or under the eves of a building get caught up in the fire. Let's not forget the spiders and other small critters that inhabit all of our spaces. And let's also face the reality of the situation, the activists who set these blazes rarely stick around to ensure that the blaze does not get out of control or that there is no loss of human or animal life - if they did, that would at least demonstrate some consideration for the outcome of their actions.

I am not quite sure what kind of world people want to create through their activism, but if it is a world where anytime we disagree with another person we can wait until their leave their house and then burn the place to the ground - that will not be the kind of world worth living in.

Tom, do you even know who PETA is?

Yeah Joe, what do any of those quotes have to do with the local businesses in Dupont Ciricle? Are they all test labs and fur farms? Do you even know what kind of businesses are there? Moreover, why would PETA office staff members attack their neighbors? So they could get caught? Everything you post is in irrational and embarassing (to anyone who could think their way out of a paper bag, that is).

Dave, are you insane? Nothing in those statements is a threat? What if a vivisector was moving into that area? I am sure the he/she would want to know what danger they could be in. You said yourself they are the ones who need worry.

Regarding the lab that Rodney Coronado helped firebomb, the research in that labe was done on mink because mink are very sensitive to toxins in their environment. The researcher was seeking the cause of Great Lakes pollution which negatively impacted the reproductive capabilities of wild animals and domesticated animals eating the fish from the Great Lakes (also humans too, of course, but no one knew that yet).

It turned out that the Great Lakes were polluted by PCB, an endocrine disrupter. PCB is found in insulation used in the production of electricity.

The trouble was originally found by fishermen who also raised domesticated mink on the shores of the Great Lakes. They would go fishing, clean the fish for market and use the heads, guts, offal, to feed their domesticated mink which gave them a winter crop, providing cold weather clothing -- long before synthetic (chemically manufactured) clothing started to rule the world.

When the mink raised by the fishermen did not reproduce as they should have, the research was begun at the lab to find the environmental toxin. PCB pollution was discoverd to be the culprit -- it was in the Great Lakes, its fish, its wildlife, the entire eco-system. Turned out that the population of wild mink along the lakeshore had also collapsed.

So Rodney Coronado and friends destroyed early PCB research, research that was key to identifying a pollutant in the Great Lakes. Good job, Rodney.

Well put Canaduck.

Joe:
Cool. Now you have real sources. Unfortunately, who cares? It's completely irrelevant, because nothing about those quotes in any way indicates that anyone in the surrounding area (except for a vivisector) really has anything to worry about, and even then, none of those statements in any way constitute a threat.


To quote you:

"For the billionth time, the end result is the same..destruction and violence."

1. An explosion explodes. Seems pretty simple eh? That results in lots of things flying all over the place, which makes it a lot more likely someone is going to get injured.

2. Explain to me how burning down an empty building, which is an inanimate object, is violence, and then explain to me how buying a product or tacitly endorsing the use of a product that is created through acts of violence (by any definition) isn't violent. And after that explain to me what your huge problem with violence is, seeing as you live in the United States which has one of the most violent societies in human history.

You people seem very hung up on dates, so I have many of the same quotes (I cut and pasted again sorry I know I am the only one who does that) this time with the dates. I put them in bold (hopefully) so you can't miss them and included an audio clip for Bruce.

Ingrid Newkirk Co-founder of PETA

“Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”
— The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov 1999


“I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment.”
— ABC News interview, Apr 2001

“Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.”
— New York Daily News, Dec 1997

“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
— "National Animal Rights Convention", Jun 1997

“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report , Apr 2002



Alex Pacheco Co-Founder of PETA

“We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others.”
— The New York Times, Jan 1989


“Damaging the enemy financially is fair game.”
— Washington City Paper, Dec 1987


“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.”
— PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco lists the “acceptable” tactics to fight for animal rights, Associated Press, Jan 1989

Bruce Friedrich PETA’s vice president of International Grassroots

Audio clip
http://www.animalscam.com/sources.cfm?type=aud



“If we really believe that these animals do have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.
— “Animal Rights 2001” convention, Jul 2001

Dr. David Mitchell: That was hilarious! Nice job.

Joe: You keep mentioning PETA's lousy animal shelter records as evidence of terrorism. Towards who, I wonder? The animals? In that case, wouldn't everyone who kills mass numbers of animals be considered terrorists?

By the way, PETA has said that they support what the ALF does, but so has Bob Barker. So have many of the people on this website. That doesn't mean any of us actually engage in any illegal activities.

If I claim to support our troops in Iraq, does that make me a soldier?

"And for the billionth time, burning and bombing aren’t the same thing."

For the billionth time, the end result is the same..destruction and violence.

Dave I said most have names of said them...these do.


“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows … Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.
— Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator

“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report

“Our campaigns are always geared towards children and they always will be”
— PETA vice president Dan Matthews, on the Fox News Network

“Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe.”
— PETA’s Domestic Animal Issues & Abuse Department director Daphna Nachminovitch, in The Virginian-Pilot

“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.”
— PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco lists the “acceptable” tactics to fight for animal rights, Associated Press

“I love fire, be it around a campfire with friends or when consuming an empty fur farm, animal laboratory or luxury condominium built on the homes of my animal relations.”
— Former ALF member and PETA grantee Rodney Coronado in Earth First! Journal

Wow, what a huge distraction. First of all, who cares what CCF writes about PETA? I am sure the people at PETA had a good laugh over the press release and letters. Of course the good thing about money and our laws which value property over almost everything else, is that PETA can afford to buy any building they want and it really does not matter what the neighbors think because if PETA buys the building then the neighbors just have to suck it up.

Now I have not lived in DC in a while (left in 1994) but I suspect that the Dupont Circle area is still fairly progressive. I doubt that many of the neighbors actually care that PETA is moving in. I am certain that there are some Republican and right wing lobbying groups near the 1536 Sixteenth Street address where PETA is moving to, but again, I doubt that they care it is PETA who will be their neighbors.

I hope that PETA is moving their whole operation. Norfolk was always a very confusing choice for PETA's national headquarters. Talk about locating in a neighborhood hostile to your organizations mission, Norfolk, VA, has never been (and probably never will be) a mecca of progressive, vegetarian/vegan thinking. If PETA could survive in Norfolk and if PETAs neighbors in Norfolk could survive with PETA next door then I am certain that the neighbors of PETA in DC will not even blink with PETA moving in next door.

As far as the First Amendment, if we can all agree that PETA can say what they believe then we also have to accept that CCF and Joe and the other people who dislike PETA can say what they believe. The First Amendment is a two way street.

Well, I'm sorry, but I just have to agree with these types of warning. These AR nuts are just about EVERYWHERE. I have a neighbour, a lady of 97, who spends all her pension on feeding stray cats. But hey, at night, she dons her camouflage uniform, a balaclava, and out she goes, letting off bombs at all the fur shops and meat suppliers.
She gives out this image of being a really, cute sweet old broad, but I can see through her. Its just one big act. In the morning I see her busy in her kitchen. She tries to give the impression that she's cooking bread, but I know she's producing high explosives to use late at night in her AR terrorism, clearly aimed at bringing down the very fabric of democracy
I say thank god for all these wonderful people who are warning us about these murderous anarchical anti-capitalist AR terrorists!
I could write more, but its time for my medication....

Joe's right, everyone better watch out for Peta. If you aren't careful, they'll put you on a "worst dressed list"!!!!!!
http://www.peta.org/feat-worstdressed09-winners...

“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
— “National Animal Rights Convention”

“Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”
— The Chronicle of Higher Education

“I think [food producers] should appreciate that we’re only targeting their property. Because frankly I think it’s time to start targeting them.”
— “Conference on Organized Resistance,” American University


None of those have dates or speakers. Only one of them actually has a date.

And for the billionth time, burning and bombing aren't the same thing.

And if it's actions specifically targeting a group of people engaging in a specific activity, how does it make sense to "warn everyone"? Clearly it has nothing to do with violence because American's LOVE violence as long as it's directed at brown people on the other side of the world.

Does not matter what sort of research the lab did the fact remains that Coranado blew it up and PETA gave him a $70,000 reward, financing terrorism is still terrorism.

Look again most of the quotes I posted have the speakers listed.

"Blew Up a Research Lab"

What, you mean the facility that was researching life-saving ways to breed mink to have thicker pelts faster so they could be anally electrocuted so they could be made into coats for rich people? And was set on fire, not blown up? Oh. Okay.

The thing in question here isn't PETA's kill rate, don't try to change the subject. I don't even like PETA, I don't think they do much to help animals, but that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're talking about completely legal speech being called terrorism, which if you care about freedom (y'know, the kind in the constitution, not the kind on the CCF's website), should send up a red-flag for you. Look up laws regarding threats, none of those comments given context could even remotely be construed as threats in a court room.

Also, if you really equate using over the top rhetoric to express hatred towards an industry with molesting children then you should probably see a psychiatrist because you're dreadfully out of touch with reality.

And seriously, without a date or a speaker none of those quotes have any validity as documenting that they were said, let alone proving that they're somehow threats.

Jack, most of the quotes that I cut and pasted (from everyones reaction I must be the only one on the internet that has ever cut and pasted) were from PETA top brass not its supporters.

joe-

"Second, just because I found those quotes at ActivistCash doesn’t change the fact that they are true quotes from top Peta people and supporters."

so if i copied and pasted quotes from Bush's racist supporters, I'd be representing the opinions and beliefs of the Republican party?


"If I were moving into this neighborhood I would welcome such a warning. This is no different than being warned about a child molester moving into your area, doesn’t mean he will do anything but at least you know hes there and can take precautions."

and i'm sorry but that's just a terribly cute, ignorant quote. PETA isn't NEARLY as harmful as so many lobbyists loitering around Washington, DC. They couldn't afford to be harmful with their spotlight and presence. They'd lose all of their celebrity endorsements. It's still a business.

Jack

Will prove to me that no one at peta has ever said any of those quotes.

Will, first Peta has over a 90% kill rate at its so called shelter so lets not call it a shelter.

Second, just because I found those quotes at ActivistCash doesn't change the fact that they are true quotes from top Peta people and supporters.

Third, its because of the words that peta has used that a warning is necessary. Look at what they have said most are extremely violent.

Fourth, Peta is in "cahoots" with the ALF, they proved that fact when they gave $70,000 dollars to Rod Coranado to help defend him when he blew up a research lab. Also papers that were in the lab at the time of the attack were sent by Coranado to Ingrid Newkirk by Fedex but were seized by the FBI before reaching her.

If I were moving into this neighborhood I would welcome such a warning. This is no different than being warned about a child molester moving into your area, doesn't mean he will do anything but at least you know hes there and can take precautions.

If anyone would like to explain to Joe why unattributed quotes from a corporate front group aren't reputable sources, or why political speech is different than child molestation, have at it.

Joe --
“Our campaigns are always geared towards children and they always will be”
— PETA vice president Dan Matthews, on the Fox News Network

This is clearly not a threat of violence. Use some sense before you cut and paste.

Ha ha. Well the definition in the law does include "animal shelters," so it might not be TOO far of a stretch.

I love the thought of terrorism legislation being used to actually protect activist groups rather than corporate hacks.

Will, why shouldn't they be warned? Here are a few quotes from key peta members expressing the need for violence.


“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.
— Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator



“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report




“Our campaigns are always geared towards children and they always will be”
— PETA vice president Dan Matthews, on the Fox News Network


“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
— "National Animal Rights Convention"


“Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”
— The Chronicle of Higher Education



“I think [food producers] should appreciate that we’re only targeting their property. Because frankly I think it’s time to start targeting them.”
— "Conference on Organized Resistance," American University



“Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe.”
— PETA's Domestic Animal Issues & Abuse Department director Daphna Nachminovitch, in The Virginian-Pilot


“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.”
— PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco lists the “acceptable” tactics to fight for animal rights, Associated Press


“I love fire, be it around a campfire with friends or when consuming an empty fur farm, animal laboratory or luxury condominium built on the homes of my animal relations.”
— Former ALF member and PETA grantee Rodney Coronado in Earth First! Journal

Joe:
1) All of those quotes and cut and pasted from "ActivistCash.com," which is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom... the source of this scare-mongering PR campaign. That's even worse than citing Wikipedia.
2) Even if you truly believe all of their PR campaign, explain to me how people using WORDS justifies sending out warnings of VIOLENCE.
3) And even if you truly believe Peta is in cahoots with the Animal Liberation Front, this still doesn't make any sense. ALF actions aren't randomly targeted (as CCF sent this letter of warning to everyone in the area).

Is PeTA moving the whole operation or just opening a DC office? That Norfolk location has always kept me from applying. C'mon CCF, throw a fact into your press release!

Does this make CCF an animal enterprise terrorist? PETA is certainly an animal enterprise. :)