PETA a Terrorist Group?

then why are they the most popular animal rights group?

Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.

Perpetrated for a political goal – Something that many acts of terrorism have in common is a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. One definition that combines the key elements was developed at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies by Carsten Bockstette: "Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – The distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term. For these reasons, this criterion is not universally accepted; most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

... TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA ...

regardless of the obvious excellence of you source (wiki indeed), language is an ever evolving and fluid concept. Don't take my word for it, read "Language in Thought and Action" by S. I. Hiakawa

When the objective is to scare or disgust someone by actions (PETA goes much further than words only, so the free speech argument is specious at best), it is (to me) at a minimum bullying and approaches terrorism. Both can be physical or psychological. We have regualtions regarding both, and they are really the same thing, only a matter of degree.

Well I noticed some people talking about what "terrorist" really means so I threw that out there as a "reference".

but yeah, I think PETA is borderline terrorist... I respect and understand what they are trying to say and let be known.. but to go as far as the McDonalds evil Ronald McDonalds for kids.. and I think someone said they showed pictures of dead/mutilated elephants to kids at circus.. i don't know... I'm sure they can sit there and show all these things to young undeveloped mind kids and then turn around and blame video games / movies that they are too violent or that they are disrespecting human rights... I don't know... PETA, if you want to be respected... start thinking of new ways to spread your "education"

That's how it works. When you don't agree with someone who hasn't harmed anyone and is just obnoxious and does stupid things....you make sure you vilify them so that they are breaking the law. That's how you get rid of them.

peta goes MUCH farther than speaking. if you think they are harmless, join my group SLOCJLM (smoke lots of crack just like me), believe me it's harmless it just gets bad publicity because the drug companies (factory farms?) don't control it...

Well said.

takes a bow....

Scarier are those that justify generalizations.

really??those who generalize can't be scary??????

I don't know about you, but there's a lot of generalization that's thrown aroud that scares the hell out of me:
All Blacks are lazy
All Democrats are idiots
All blondes are stupid sex toys
All people on welfare are minority and lazy
People who eat meat are bad
All livestock is tortured

These are all generalizations that get thrown out by various groups with their own agendas, and are all refutable using facts and observation instead of gobbling up indoctrination from the cult that is issuing the statements.

Oh, I left one out:

The Germans are the Master Race.

Yeah, the whole world loved that non-scary generalization. Sure, they are a great race, but Master??

Just remember:

Meat IS Murder....TASTY, TASTY MURDER!

re: your previous reply to bombastinator

you are the one making an assumption, not him. nowhere in that post is it implied that a man talked her into that pose, only that perhaps somoeone did and that it wasn't her idea.

And yes, it's for sure that a man was involved, because we still can't make sperm in the lab...

grow up and lose your closed-minded, holier-than-thou attitude that always assumes the worst from others. Oh, and while you're at it, get a sense of humor and laugh before your face freezes in that awful, hateful grimace you so obviously wear as a shield.

the problem is that what you say can go for any country.

Nice failed try, though.

And?

Countries all have people. Suggesting one is better than another or worse than another is pretty stupid.

What blond?

to think that another country is better or that the grass is greener on the other side is not only a lie it's retarded.

it's not "above" humans, it's "equal" to humans. you are blind to the fact we ARE animals.

Dear freaking moron,

How in the world are you able to lie to yourself so severely as to conflate passing out anti-McDonalds goodie bags as terrorism. Unless there are bombs or deadly biological weapons inside, you're labeling of this as terrorism is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who reads this site and demolishes the impact of the term. Stop being a jerk. It doesn't matter how you feel about PETA, they are not participating in what can be described as 'terrorism.' If I could call every group I don't like terrorism I'd be calling the feds on the L.A. Dodgers frequently.

AMEN!

OWNED!!!

wow that sounds really open-minded and intelligent.

Glad you agree, person who tolerates hypocritical fringe groups...

i do agree totally. eat an animal every time you hear peta. they are the only representatives on earth for animal rights. maybe you should take it further, like i have, and kick a dog every time you hear peta. i also like to put a cat in the microwave whenever peta is mentioned or noticed. the life of all creatures on this earth is based entirely on the actions of this one single organization!

If you guys would like to eat diseased animals or if you get off on throwing cats into microwaves, go for it.

I'll stick to my normal diet.

well.. i guess i'm a terrorist too... I've done that! oops! =D

My teachers always said you can't define a word using the same word. You can't define terrorist using the word terror.

So let's try that again. Anyone got a definition for terrorist? Anyone? Bueller?

Did you ever look in the dictionary? "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

So how does that not apply to their tactics?

so, since the healthcare debates started, in a bureaucratic way every republican is a terrorist. according to your logic.

@JonRaymond. Having read the dictionary definitions of terrorism given in response to your thoughtful question, I have a question for you(though I apologize for it's rhetorical nature): Wasn't that the way the USA got its start ? I mean weren't those methods, at times and in some places, used to combat colonial enemies ? The movie The Patriot starring Mel Gibson, Heath Leger, Rene Auberjonois et al was historicaly accurate. Before the American Revolutionary War for Independence, there were the French & Indian wars. The movie Last of the Mohicans made about a decade before The Patriot vividly depicts the savage history of atrocities used for terrorist purposes. Both the Franch and the English were competing here in New York. We have a French fort here on Onondaga lake, home of the Iroquois nations, though New York was settled by the Dutch and then the English. The American Revolution was revisited in Time magazine during 1976, the bicentennial year. It described how 1/3 of the colonials were Patriots, 1/3 were Tories loyal to the crown because they feared the disruption of law & order would be far worse than the oppression they were saddled with. And 1/3 of the colonials were realy double agents and their minions who sold guns, information to both sides freely and were profiteers for it. The breakdown of law & order did lead to atocities which the other side would escalate to compete with to see whose terrorism was more effective. When you realize that if the founding fathers were caught, they'd have been abducted back to England, forced to testify against themselves, then hung, drawn and quartered, disemboweled, burned and beheaded...Well my point is we don't live in a universe of absolutes do we. Terrorism is, like everything else a relative term that can be carried to the absurd and made virtualy meaningless. The USA was, like it or not, born at least in part out of terrorism.

The flaw in that argument is that is can be made to serve any anarchist cause since it is always "the ends justifying the means" Just because practically every country on the planet was organized by violent conquerors doesn't make it a method to be admired.

It doesn't make it right when those extremes are used that is what makes it terrorism, the republicans at those debates on heath care that used the issues are not terrorists, but those that brought guns to the debates to use intimidation tactics instead of the merits of the arguments are.

The ASPCA does a lot more for the cause of animal rights than any of the extreme measures used by PETA that is the difference between fighting for a cause and terrorism.

Even in the Civil Rights Movement the methods Malcom X used "by any means necessary" with the violence of the Black Panthers was different than those used by Martin Luther King showed the difference between fighting for a cause and terrorism.

GOOD

what proof do we have that they are not a terrorist group? If you are going to deny what television (i. e. the media) disseminates and treat it as not credible or biased than does that mean all of the information you get is first hand. Did you personally go to the USDA offices and ask them for a hard copy of their "security profile form" or did you just read the internet article on Current (or Treehugger)? But excuse me, Treehugger is a very legitimate and reputable news source whose morals provide them with only truths.

Nice comment!! but not once did I say or comment on them being saints. I asked a question since people are not making opinions, they are making claims.

If you're going to claim on a company, group or organization doing or did something wrong, please provide a source. Let it be from efukt.com or google.com. But proof is need when making claims... not when you're just sharing your opinion on something. We all have the right to do that...

and please, if you're going to attack me or make fun of me with "Did you personally go to the USDA offices and ask them for a hard copy of their "security profile form" or did you just read the internet article on Current (or Treehugger)"

save it, because it only makes you look like an ass.

your point? I'e neve seen a problem with people speaking their mind here.

sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

You don't have to call yourself out.

have fun with that triple bypass, genius

see now I get accused of sexism but this guy doesn't. What gives?

It's funnier and more ironic but People for the Extreme Treatment of Activism is more accurate to what they do

It's true. IIRC the USDA doesn't really have a problem with hot chicks taking their clothes off, aside from the blushing and stammering. They're mostly just a bunch of seriously nerdy middle aged white dudes.

Throw paint on people? They did that shit to me I'd make that person sip vegetables for the rest of their life...

I'm certainly not arguing that people shouldn't be free to discuss issues. But if they don't want the label 'terrorist', they need to come out and publicly condemn organizations that DO use terror tactics. Otherwise, as head of the animal rights movement, they're complicit in such acts

terrorist is as terrorist does. If they are using violence fear and criminal behavior to advance their agenda they are terrorists. The unibomber was a terrorist, even though his agenda was saving forests from unethical companies. Its not what they believe, it's what they do.

This article is hard to argue one way or another because it does not present the evidence the USDA is using for classifying them as such. Myself I have witnessed terrorist behavior out of animal rights groups, all be it twenty or more years ago.

I hunt the duck I kill the duck I pluck the duck I cook the duck I eat the duck the duck is tastey.

PETA's main issue is factory farming and the ethical violations that ensue. i don't eat meat because of factory farming. if you want to go out into their habitat and get that meat for yourself then go for it no problem. as long as the animals are not fenced in.

I'm no fan of factory farms, but as long as the demand for meat exists (forever) there will be people who figure out the cheapest way to get it from hoof to plate.

Hey, factory meat's bad for you. Wow, so was "Bathtub Gin" in the Prohibition years, with high percentges of methanol that often killed or blinded. Guess what, people wanted the buzz, drank it and took the chance. BTW, how's that prohibition thing working out these days??

If you want to make a change in the way meat is delivered to people, PETA tactics are the fastest way to make them not listen.

Go hang out with your friends wearing canvas and pleather shoes (hey, you're not cool enogh and haven't paid enough dues to wear hemp) and talk about changing the world. Maybe some day PETA will wise up and instead of being confrontational they will work to define a real strategy for change instead of meat abstinence and scare tactics.

And yes, as long as they call me a murderer for eating meat, I will continue to call them terrorists (and for msny other reasons I have listed elsewhere in this thread).

BTW iloveravi, if you're listening: let's do lunch. I make a mean eggplant-pesto-cheese-tomato casserole that will knock your socks off, you bring bread and dessert (chocolate please). i think we could find much more in common than otherwise, and even if not, i love a heated and reasoned discussion-----but really hate to fight...

Yep! they would feel much better if they came over to my house for a Bar-B-Que and had a steak and maybe a chicken quarter.

go crazy? don't mind if i do!

I suspect that your belief tat you are so branded is false. The closer question is whether or not you support the actions of the group that are terroristic in nature. if so ylu are a terrorism supporter, but unless you actually perform one of these acts I'm sorry but muchb as it seems you would like it to be true, you have just not achieved actually being a terrorist any more than thinking OJ is cool makes you a murderer. Either one might make you a douche, but that's a value judgment.

ok, lets operationalize our terms. define "terroristic in nature" in a way that doesnt include every single public action group in the world.

Easily done. Not all of petas actions are terroristic in nature. how about a nice narrow definition such as Terrorism defined as violence or coercion designed to induce compliance through fear. Only a fraction of PETA actions are like this, but a few are, which does make them a terrorist group in that sense.

The complaint is that the majority of the group believe they have nothing to do with these actions because they did not personally take part in them or condone them. They they therefore say that PETA as a whole is being unjustly accused. Most supporters of for instance the Irish Repubican Army or the Ulster Unionists did not take part in terrorist acts either. Does this mean that the groups were unjustly accused of terrorism?

Useless? makes me wonder whether you are among the percentage of americans who would be dead except for advances made by USDA research. Have you ever had surgery? Ever been bitten by a mosquito, or sprayed for roaches? Ever eaten canned food? How about sausages? I got a real real fun story about sausages.

The USDA is no longer effective. We get toxic food from China and on and on.
Cattle are fed chicken manure and they are not doing anything.

thank the bush administration for that. All one needs to do to make an institution like that ineffective is to under fund it and appoint it's enemies to leadership positions.

"True Americans"? As differentiated with all those other americans how? Do you mean say native Americans? Are the "untrue" Americans the ones who don't agree with you? It seems to be the way you want it to sound.

You're right mike, we should be shooting those people instead.

I'm not joking.

What you are advocating is not only illegal, it is terrorism. Visit your local slaughter house for cattle or pigs and see how they humanely kill the animals that are our food.