"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
I bet you're a PETAphile too.

Don't know about JB, but I am. If it's opposed to cruelty to, or
exploitation of, children or critters, I'm for it.

You DO realize PETA is a major contributor to known domestic terrorist
organizations like ALF and ELF. So you're all for firebombing car
dealerships as well then.

MnMikew wrote:

"bpnjensen" wrote in message

oups.com...

I bet you're a PETAphile too.

Don't know about JB, but I am. If it's opposed to cruelty to, or
exploitation of, children or critters, I'm for it.

You DO realize PETA is a major contributor to known domestic terrorist
organizations like ALF and ELF. So you're all for firebombing car
dealerships as well then.

I do not know this for certain; if you can provide some proof, either
rmaterial, an eyewitness account or a conviction in a court of law, I
will accept it. Having said that -

Unless a human being is harmed by one of these groups, I do not
consider an organization "terrorist." Civilly disobedient, certainly.
Guilty of property destruction, yes, sometimes. Terrorist? *No,* as
long as no humans are physically. As far as property destruction goes,
I am not in favor of bombing car dealerships or people's homes.

If, however, you consider it a terrorist organization despite lack of
human injury or death, then count me among the terrorists. Animals are
terrorized, abused, vivisected, cruelly beaten and murdered every day
in thousands of ways and circumstances, at the hands of humans who have
no special claim to any right to do so. I feel little sympathy for a
person whose pertinent property is destroyed when he or she shamelessly
abuses and tortures pain-feeling creatures on a business-as-usual
basis. This is fascism, true blue unadulterated fascism by definition
at its terrifying worst, and the animals have no voice, no vote, no
recourse whatsoever - except by those who stick up for them.

I am solidly in favor of working to educate and legislate compassion
and rights for animals. When this fails, as it so often does in the
ethically corrupt human political world, then it is fair to fight fire
with fire - so long as no human is physically harmed. Yes, I believe
that, and make no apology whatsoever. I know in my heart that the
sanctity of material possessions cannot compare with the sanctity of a
living creature's freedom from abuse.

There are various related issues, and I will be happy to discuss them
in private, not on this messy forum.

Bruce Jensen

bpnjensen wrote:

MnMikew wrote:

"bpnjensen" wrote in message

oups.com...

I bet you're a PETAphile too.

Don't know about JB, but I am. If it's opposed to cruelty to, or
exploitation of, children or critters, I'm for it.

You DO realize PETA is a major contributor to known domestic terrorist
organizations like ALF and ELF. So you're all for firebombing car
dealerships as well then.

I do not know this for certain; if you can provide some proof, either
rmaterial, an eyewitness account or a conviction in a court of law, I
will accept it. Having said that -

Unless a human being is harmed by one of these groups, I do not
consider an organization "terrorist." Civilly disobedient, certainly.
Guilty of property destruction, yes, sometimes. Terrorist? *No,* as
long as no humans are physically. As far as property destruction goes,
I am not in favor of bombing car dealerships or people's homes.

If, however, you consider it a terrorist organization despite lack of
human injury or death, then count me among the terrorists. Animals are
terrorized, abused, vivisected, cruelly beaten and murdered every day
in thousands of ways and circumstances, at the hands of humans who have
no special claim to any right to do so. I feel little sympathy for a
person whose pertinent property is destroyed when he or she shamelessly
abuses and tortures pain-feeling creatures on a business-as-usual
basis. This is fascism, true blue unadulterated fascism by definition
at its terrifying worst, and the animals have no voice, no vote, no
recourse whatsoever - except by those who stick up for them.

I am solidly in favor of working to educate and legislate compassion
and rights for animals. When this fails, as it so often does in the
ethically corrupt human political world, then it is fair to fight fire
with fire - so long as no human is physically harmed. Yes, I believe
that, and make no apology whatsoever. I know in my heart that the
sanctity of material possessions cannot compare with the sanctity of a
living creature's freedom from abuse.

There are various related issues, and I will be happy to discuss them
in private, not on this messy forum.

Damn, I'm sure hungry for a steak!

Meat: It's what real DX'ers have for dinner.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Meat: It's what real DX'ers have for dinner.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

It's what fools use to clog their arteries.

BJ

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
I do not know this for certain; if you can provide some proof, either
rmaterial, an eyewitness account or a conviction in a court of law, I
will accept it. Having said that -

http://www.animalscam.com/references/peta_rodney1.cfm

Unless a human being is harmed by one of these groups, I do not
consider an organization "terrorist."

You can't be serious? One does not have to kill or injure to terrorize.

If, however, you consider it a terrorist organization despite lack of
human injury or death, then count me among the terrorists. Animals are
terrorized, abused, vivisected, cruelly beaten and murdered every day
in thousands of ways and circumstances, at the hands of humans who have
no special claim to any right to do so. I feel little sympathy for a
person whose pertinent property is destroyed when he or she shamelessly
abuses and tortures pain-feeling creatures on a business-as-usual
basis.

So is medical research considered shameless abuse or torture? Then I guess
your OK with bombing University research labs.

This is fascism, true blue unadulterated fascism by definition
at its terrifying worst, and the animals have no voice, no vote, no
recourse whatsoever - except by those who stick up for them.

No, it's unadulterated terrorism, period.


There are various related issues, and I will be happy to discuss them
in private, not on this messy forum.

Bruce Jensen

MnMikew wrote:

You can't be serious? One does not have to kill or injure to terrorize.

No? What must one do, then? Define "terror" for me. Then I'll define
it again for you, since you didn't seem to latch onto who the real
terrorists are.

If "terror" is freeing animals from unspeakable misery, then I am a
terrorist sympathizer. I am not in favor of unnecessary damage.

As I told you, I'll be happy to discuss various aspects in private
(Like medical research).

Bruce Jensen

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
MnMikew wrote:

You can't be serious? One does not have to kill or injure to terrorize.

No? What must one do, then? Define "terror" for me. Then I'll define
it again for you, since you didn't seem to latch onto who the real
terrorists are.

If "terror" is freeing animals from unspeakable misery, then I am a
terrorist sympathizer. I am not in favor of unnecessary damage.

Explain the dumpster full of dead animals that PETA killed.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/109

Since you didnt seem to latch on to it here it is for you.

terrorize
v 1: coerce by violence or with threats [syn: terrorise]
2: fill with terror; frighten greatly [syn: terrify, terrorise]

MnMikew wrote:
Since you didnt seem to latch on to it here it is for you.

terrorize
v 1: coerce by violence or with threats [syn: terrorise]
2: fill with terror; frighten greatly [syn: terrify, terrorise]

How much clearer can it be? If you don't do what they tell you to do,
they will sneak up on your back and do you serious harm.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Real men and wimmins eat meat.
cuhulin

Explain the dumpster full of dead animals that PETA killed.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/109

Thanks, I will look into this. Meanwhile, who really funds this
website?

Since you didnt seem to latch on to it here it is for you.

terrorize
v 1: coerce by violence or with threats [syn: terrorise]
2: fill with terror; frighten greatly [syn: terrify, terrorise]

I agree with neither of these as appropriate tactics.

Having said this, it is then up to people to argue as to whether
specific actions constitute "terrorism." We may have differences of
opinion. Using explosives on labs definitely qualifies, as it raises
questions in the minds of owners and workers whether or not they could
be targeted during working hours. OTOH, mechanical destruction of
cages or abusive equipment does not, since the act and the result pose
no threat to the physical well-being of any worker.

I am not saying it isn't a crime - but it isn't terrorism.

Bruce Jensen