14 Cattle Trucks Burned by Activists at Harris Ranch in Coalinga, California

[Omaha Steve]

For Immediate Release
January 9, 2012

Received anonymously:

at about 3:40 am on sunday, january 8th, 14 cattle trucks caught fire at the harris feeding company in coalinga, ca. containers of accelerant were placed beneath a row of 14 trucks with 4 digital timers used to light 4 of the containers and kerosene-soaked rope carrying the fire to the other 10 (a tactic adapted from Home Alone 2 [if you're going to try this make sure to use kerosene, gasoline dries to quickly]). we weren't sure how well this was going to work, so we waited until there was news reports before writing this. we were extremely pleased to see that all 14 trucks "were a total loss" with some being "completely melted to the ground."

we're not going to use this space to expound upon the horrors and injustices of factory farming. there is more than enough armchair-activists and those of passive politics who are more than willing to do that (anything to keep from getting their hands dirty). we, the unsilent minority (the 1%, if you will), choose a more direct form of action.

we're not delusional enough to believe that this action will shut down the harris feeding company, let alone have any effect on factory farming as a whole. but we maintain that this type of action still has worth, if not solely for the participant's peace of mind, then to show that despite guards, a constant worker presence, and razorwire fence, the enemy is still vulnerable.

finally, to all those who fantasize and romanticize about direct action yet remain on the fence: there is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed and we can't count on spontaneous combustion and careless welders to do all the work.

until next time...

[Press Office note: Harris Ranch Beef Company is California's largest fed cattle "processor" producing nearly 200 million pounds of beef a year. The largest cattle feeder on the West Coast and 14th largest nationally encompasses a 100,000-head feed lot. At any given time there will normally be between 70-100,000 head of cattle on feed. Harris Feeding Company feeds about 1/3 of all the cows murdered in California. Cows spend the last days of their short, brutal lives standing in their own waste, until hauled off to have their throats slit and their bodies sliced into small pieces for human consumption.

Video of the "feed lot" here:

]

[The Straight Story]

1. Some burn trucks, some abortion clinics

seems like there is always someone burning something and hoping it will get them sympathy.

[WingDinger]

2. Most of the time it takes self immolation to get a reaction.

Arab Spring, for instance. Many in India. Tibet.

[The Straight Story]

3. When we have the ability to clone ourselves we can immolate our clone

[ellisonz]

25. I wish...

...Tibetan self-immolation would get a reaction, then the Tibetans wouldn't believe they have little choice but self-immolation in their call for basic human rights.

[mattvermont]

4. Eye for an eye, anyone? nt

[slackmaster]

35. The California Penal Code doesn't allow for that, but you can get a life sentence for arson

It's one of our most serious violent felonies.

[hang a left]

54. Only if there is a death in an act of arson...

Can you receive life in prison in California. That being said, I see absolutely no purpose in setting a fire to make a political statement. It will not change the corporate structure of our food supply. much like OWS will not change the structure of our financial institution owned government. Tis a little late to be complaining.

[slackmaster]

57. Death is always a risk when someone commits arson

Anyone who does so is a violent criminal, regardless of their intent. Morally it's no different than shooting a gun in some random direction, or setting off a bomb with a time fuse.

[hang a left]

58. You and I shall agree..

But, I was specific in the penalty for arson with a death, which in CA qualifies as at least third degree murder if not murder in the first.

[Gore1FL]

5. Terrorism

Blowing shit up to make a political point fits that description.

[flvegan]

6. Hardcore animal liberationist here, denouncing the use of fire or anything that goes ka-boom.

Sorry, you can't control fire.

Rule #4: To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

[mattvermont]

9. so are you suggesting

that any other means of destruction of the offending machinery is appropriate, given the threat?
Just want to know what is acceptable within the movement.

[flvegan]

11. I'm not suggesting anything so vague. "Any other means"...no thanks.

And I'm certainly not the barometer of "what is acceptable within the movement"

You should hear how the AALF (Armchair Animal Liberation Front) idiots despise me.

[mattvermont]

12. Al I am trying to say

is that all options are available to those willing to live with their choices...I agree with you, that this act was reckless, even though nothing was hurt.
I, personally would have nothing to do with such an act, but then again, I do not dare judge the importance this issue to others, and what they may do to counter the injustice, as they see it.

[flvegan]

19. Again, Rule #4.

I judge those that use fire. The importance you give an issue shouldn't trump the outcome that could happen that causes more damage to life than the (whatever) you were burning does.

Always other ways.

[Zalatix]

65. Thanks for your more moderate POV.

[ceile]

73. +1. Yep. n/t

[Robb]

7. Bullshit. I'll tell you why they "waited for news reports."

They wanted to make sure they hadn't killed anyone before claiming credit. Firebombs on timers aren't particularly discriminate.

Glad to hear they didn't.

[Ikonoklast]

16. They were extremely lucky that they killed no one.

From the video of the crime scene, at least one of those tractors was a sleeper unit.

Unless the terrorists knocked on the door to ascertain that no one was sleeping in the bunk of that tractor, the only reason no one was killed was pure luck.


This could just as easily been an arson murder investigation.

People that use violent means to further their agenda are to be despised.

When those on the Right firebomb abortion clinics, they use the same justifications for their actions.

[jsmirman]

47. ZERO human injuries ever =/= "extremely lucky"

FACT: ZERO human injuries have resulted from any actions of the animal advocacy movement in the freaking history of that movement in this country.

That might suggest that it is decidedly NOT LUCK.

Did you know that? I didn't know that until recently.

I think a lot of people have a misconception that animal advocacy is like hit or miss when it comes to the "could human beings be injured" question. NOT ONE FUCKING BIT CORRECT.

It is ENTIRELY MISS. ZERO is a hard number to get around. Compare it to the murder, kidnappings, assaults, etc. of the anti-abortionists - a movement that actually DOESN'T give a damn about killing and injuring people and you will realize that you are comparing apples and bulldozers.

It at least seems from your post that you would be very surprised to learn that there have been ZERO HUMAN INJURIES caused by animal advocates. It is a perverse shame that this is not more well-known, even among people much more generally informed about things like, you know, facts, than the average american.

[Ikonoklast]

48. Pure luck no one was killed.

Pure, dumb luck.

Only a matter of time before they murder an innocent person.

Good of to to be apologizing for criminals and domestic terrorists, the abortion clinic fire-bombers are with you in solidarity.

[jsmirman]

50. You do understand how statistics work, right?

No, I do not think you have a clue.

This is not a small sample size. The animal welfare/rights movement is not a new movement - although it is newer than many other movements - but it sure wasn't born yesterday. With the number of actions taken and the human injury toll at ZERO, it is not luck, it is not coincidence, it is not even just a trend. It is overwhelming evidence that physical harm to actual human beings is not what is practiced by these groups.

Yet you lump animal activists with anti-abortion activists, who HAVE committed numerous murders and much more numerous assaults, along with making countless death threats. Insanity.

You have bought the government bullshit and your conflation is shameful.

[Ikonoklast]

52. Keep defending violent domestic terrorists.

You are definitely not a Democrat, Liberal,or Progressive in any way if you apologize for terrorism.

Each time one of these groups use violence in order to further their agenda brings them one day closer to killing someone.

[Major Nikon]

64. Non-fact

Do you really think that people are not going to suffer emotional injuries when their businesses are torched, their families are given death threats, and their homes and cars are firebombed? What do you think happens when a child (or even an adult) has a genuine fear of being killed over their occupation or a family member's occupation? The whole point of terrorism is to inflict these types of emotional injuries. Actual physical injuries are secondary at best. These people know that property is insured. Their goal is to inflict emotional injury on people.

If you're trying to gain sympathy for a "movement" that hasn't actually managed to kill anyone yet, I don't think you'll find much. Someone who uses violence and/or the threat of violence in an attempt to achieve what they can't achieve at the ballot box is a terrorist. It's that simple. I don't make such differentiation between the ALF terrorists and the anti-abortion terrorists. Both have adequately demonstrated that they value their cause far more than they value human life. As such they deserve nothing more than scorn and marginalization.

[Vattel]

77. Wow, no violence against property allowed even for a good cause. You are hard core.

[Major Nikon]

83. Keep minimizing their actions if it makes you feel better

If you think all these people are doing is destroying property, you're sticking your head in the sand. Do you really think that the anti-abortionists who firebomb clinics are just destroying property? Property is insured and these people know it. They are sending a violent message to those who make their living doing something these people disagree with.

The cause is irrelevant. I don't have two sets of standards. If I call someone who firebombs an abortion clinic a scumbag terrorist, then turn around and apply a different standard to someone who firebombs cattle trucks, that makes me a hypocrite in my book. YMMV.

[jsmirman]

84. Ridiculous

you make stuff up completely in your post. And it's awesome that you just declare something a non-fact.

Please show where there have been death threats.

Homes firebombed??? NEVER. You so clearly have animal activists confused with anti-abortion activists.

There has never been any sort of violence at anyone's home. There have been at most one or two "incidents" - but these were instances of the animal activists being attacked.

These people don't fear for their lives, their families don't have any reason to fear for their lives. Nothing has ever happened that would make them fear that and I would be devastated if anything ever happened that changed that.

Your post also includes a gross distortion.

"If you're trying to gain sympathy for a "movement" that hasn't actually managed to kill anyone yet" - this is BULLSHIT. This is a movement that hasn't caused a SINGLE INJURY in this country - no one has sprained a freaking ankle because of animal activism in this country. Way to change the terms of the conversation to suit what you felt like saying.

I think you also have ELF confused with ALF. I'm about as far from a member of either as you can find, and I don't believe in arson or explosions. There are certain types of direct action I am less opposed to. Personally, though, I believe in following the laws and, as long as laws are applied equally, there are laws and penalties for breaking those laws, and that's how it is.

[hardluck]

94. Homes firebombed? Nah, never...

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/statement-of-ucla-chancellor-gene-40060.aspx

Nothing to fear from a firebomb placed under your car...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/02/26/targeting-researchers.html

No reason to fear for their lives, I mean who fears car bombs, home invasions and death threats. Wusses...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/04/animal_research_ucla_kcet.php

[jsmirman]

95. This is what I can tell you

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)

The Foundation for Biomedical Research - as anti-animal advocacy an organization as you can find - put out a "Top 20 List of Illegal Actions by Animal and Eco-Terrorists 1996-2006."

On this entire list, there is not a single listed human injury involved in any of the incidents. I don't believe this has changed, but if it has changed, I will stand corrected.

I have found one instance where there is a definitive link between animal advocacy and damage to someone's home - this is the intentional flooding of a researcher's home. I would find this to hew dangerously close to a definition of terrorism.

If there is, indeed, any proof of arson or explosions involving someone's home, I would definitely consider such a thing to be fairly placed under the heading of terrorism. I don't condone arson or explosions involving commercial property, but attacks on someone's home take things to another, horrifying level. If there is proof of any of these incidents, I would find it appalling.

I believe my challenge, however, was to find an incident where any human was injured (such an incident would violate the tenets of *any* animal activist organization, from the most moderate to the most radical) - I have yet to see anything that resembles proof or anything where there was even an arrest made or a charge of injury to a human being.

With that said, though, I would repeat that if there are proven instances of violence to a home beyond the flooding I reference above, that would be contemptible (and to be clear, I find the flooding also to be whatever term there is that is worse than "indefensible.&quot

[jsmirman]

96. Some of what you mention there refers to the "AETA 4"

I should have recognized the connection in some of the material you linked to.

In reference to the only arrests that appear to have been made in connection to any of the incidents you cited, not only were all charges dropped, but the US Atty's office seems to have completely closed the case.

It does seem that some of the recent activities in California, though, may have involved threats to people at their homes. If this is the case, I apologize for being incorrect in my assertion that there have been no threats to people's persons - I don't know if this is the case or not. I have contacted a number of people who should have more information on this. I don't oppose peaceful demonstrations. If there are threats of violence to people's persons that is abhorrent.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. No support here.

The trucks were most certainly insured.

I do not support the destruction of property to make a political point.

[XemaSab]

10. Harris Ranch is vile

n/t

[hunter]

15. Are there any Valley feedlots or dairy farms that are not vile?

They've disinclined me from eating beef or dairy products.

I'm not a vegetarian, but it's not easy finding dairy or meat that doesn't come from places that mistreat animals.

The politics of the factory farmers tend to be pretty vile too.

Everyone should know what kind of practices they support when they buy factory farm meat or dairy products. The way to stop this is not to vandalize trucks, but to support laws that protect farm animals and refuse to buy products from corporations that abuse animals.(Sadly, there's worse out there than Harris Ranch, much worse...)

Google maps has some pretty good satellite views of these huge feedlots. Thankfully the internet can't transmit the smell.

[dhill926]

18. well said..............n/t

[catchnrelease]

24. Yes

Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno CA--the cows live on grass pastures. The family even has a "mobile milking parlor", a sort of trailer that is moved out into the pastures, the cows walk in, are milked and walk back out into the grass. No feedlots with mud up to their knees.

And there are many small, family beef ranchers whose practices are audited and certified by Animal Welfare Approved as humane.

You have to do a little research and probably pay more, but if I am going to eat meat/dairy then I want to support the people that care for their animals in a decent way.

[JDPriestly]

13. I also do not support the use of violence even to property to make a political point.

[T S Justly]

17. Oh my, an act of war on a private industry in a sovereign nation. Will be interesting, this one. K&R

[pipoman]

20. Domestic terrorism

hopefully they are apprehended, tried, and convicted and get to serve lengthy stays in the state farm..dumb asses

[joshcryer]

22. Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Protection_Act

FYI I disagree with this law.

And I fear for these activists because they very likely will get caught. They are too loose lipped and too fragmented. As the Green Scare showed, if one guy rats, everyone collapses.

I don't advocate their methods. I do think that they did something stupid and don't deserve what's coming (like 20-30 years in jail) for being nothing more than mosquitoes on the rear end of the giant elephant of a corporate machine that is factory farming.

A year or two imprisonment, a lot of community service stuff, that'd be OK.

And that's what the rat is going to get if history is anything to go by.

[T S Justly]

26. You're ...

You're is what you're looking for to make your handle reflect what I think you want it to mean. Not your. Your would
mean you're ours under the name "not the answer". A minor quibble. I mainly wanted to make the point, contrary to
assertions in your post, that ports are not being blown up by seafood eaters, and, I presume you want us to
think protesters, here, or maybe even Occupy or the union, or by anybody else. I don't know where you got that, but
it's horse and shit. Thank-you.

[barbols2009]

29. response

Well said @yournottheanswer. Don't like it, get the hell out. I eat beef, I raised beef, I sale beef. It creates jobs, food, income, and a way of life that's been a part of this world for centuries. Back then, if you were a veggie, you probably wouldn't make it. It's called, "living off the land." If you think "God wouldn't agree" well why the hell did he put animals on this earth? It's the food chain. We eat animals, some eat us, and so on and so forth. I'll bet you, it wasn't that humane back then, more so than it is now. Setting fire to a business just cuz you don't agree reminds me of a 5 year old screaming, and crying, throwing a fit, just because he didn't get his way.

[cpaddack2011]

33. Yes

Someone who has their head on straight!

[Matariki]

23. Good cause harmed by egregious tactics.

Which hurts said good cause.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. That feed lot is an obscenity.

A horrible, horrible place that no living creature should be subject to. I have had the misfortune to drive past it many times over the years -- it is so depressing my beef loving Mom has sworn off the stuff after viewing the conditions.

[Odin2005]

28. What ever your opinions on animals as food, this is terrorism and is wrong.

[F.Y.I.]

30. Do a little research

I guess as you were ranting on about how much you dislike "Factory Farms" you missed the fact that Harris Ranch is a family run farm. "The Harris family has been farming for over 100 years, and the Fresno County farm has been under continuous family operation since 1937." http://harrisranch.com/company_history.php

"According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 98 percent of all U.S. farms are owned by individuals, family partnerships or family corporations. Some people refer to these as “corporate farms,” but they usually are incorporated among two or three family members, a father and son or daughter, or other family partnerships.
People also mistake family corporations for “factory farms,” which are run by one corporation that often owns or controls all aspects of the production process. Those corporate operations make up only 2 percent of U.S. farms and account for only 14 percent of U.S. farm product sales." http://www.saveourfood.org/learn/WhySaveOurFood/FamilyFarms.aspx

Before you go and attack a FAMILY FARM because you believe factory farms are taking over our society, do a little research.

[jsmirman]

44. BS, BS, BS!!! And Koch Industries is a "family run corporation"

Factory Farms aren't taking over our society?

"By 1998 the larger plants slaughtering over one million hogs had increased to 30, and by 2006, nearly 95 percent of U.S. hogs were slaughtered in plants that handled over one million head annually (GIPSA 2008)."

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/10-04HogBuyerPower.pdf

Yes, I'm sure these farms that slaughter at least one million pigs a year are just mom, pop, and daughter shops. Get the fuck out of here.

What a disgusting "semantics in service of disguising reality" based argument you are making here.

I'm in favor of local farms. You are in favor of bullshit.

Harris Ranch (2010 numbers) produces 150,000,000 pounds of beef every year! Who the fuck cares who owns it (a restricted family ownership structure)???!!!

If that's a "local farm," my fingers are cordless screwdrivers.

[ceile]

53. +1 n/t

[Major Nikon]

66. You're confusing farms with slaughterhouses

Do you actually think all farms slaughter their own livestock? If so, you have a very limited idea of what a farm is and isn't.

[jsmirman]

85. Do you know what "vertical integration" is???

What the hell are you talking about?

I think you have no fucking clue what you are talking about and don't know a thing compared to what I know about this issue.

People on this site are unbelievable in terms of not realizing that they don't automatically know more than anyone else about everything just because they are really pleased with themselves. It's disgusting.

[Major Nikon]

87. Nice comeback

You step on your dick and then blame someone else for your ignorance.

I don't have any interest in engaging in discussion with someone so angry and emotional. You've been promoted to head turd on my shit list.

Have a nice life.

[jsmirman]

91. What in the world are you talking about?

Smithfield Farms mastered "vertical integration" which involves ownership of farm production, slaughtering operations, packaging, distribution, etc.

There is no ignorance on my part. I stepped on nothing. You are the one who has no idea what you are talking about.

If you think you've made some brilliant semantic point by mentioning that Smithfield-owned CAFOs transfer animals to Smithfield-owned slaughtering operations, what possible response would such a thing demand?

[cpaddack2011]

31. COWARDS

If you want to take responsibility do not wait until the press release to make sure no one was injured during your mascaraed. Blowing stuff up (stuff that is not yours) is not the solution to this kind of problem. I am positive that place had insurance on those vehicles and you idiots just helped them buy new ones, I swear people do not think before they act. (Or they leave their brain at home)

[slackmaster]

34. That's fucked up like a football bat

Every arson hurts EVERYONE.

[ddeclue]

36. were there cows in trucks?

I'd like done mine medium well please...

[alp227]

37. why can't factory farms just be totally illegal?

[downwardly_mobile]

39. Because the vast majority CAN'T afford to buy organic free-range grass-fed

beef from gentlemen-hipster-farmers.

I happen to think it's a good thing that not only the rich can afford to eat meat. I'm not a big fan of going back to the Middle Ages. I'm funny that way.

[alp227]

40. where in the constitution is there a right to eat meat? why not go back to the family farm instead?

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. The US Constitution does not grant rights.

It's a document that LIMITS the government's ability to interfere with rights.

In the "Bill of Rights" for example, you'll find such words as:

"1. Shall make no law

2. Shall not be infringed

3. No soldier shall

4. shall not be violated

5. No person shall be held to answer... nor shall any person be subject... nor shall be compelled... nor be deprived... nor shall private property be taken...

7. no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined

8. shall not be required

9. shall not be construed

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
---

It would seem to me that since there is no mention of meat in the US Constitution, the Tenth Amendment guarantees me the right to eat meat. It doesn't grant it though.

[OxQQme]

38. The Monkey Wrench Gang rides again.

In the shade of Edward Abbey.

[Liveinit]

42. Only in California....

This is truly sad to hear. How can people be so ignorant?...I understand that everyone has their own outlook on things, but to harm other peoples property just brings you down to a whole new level of low....There are other ways to make your point besides ruining THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars worth of equipment.....Everyone has to make a living and ranching is one way. People dont realize that this LIFE STYLE has been around since before time!

It's sad that stuff like this happends in CALIFORNIA. You never hear of opperations being burned down because of peoples "ideas" of how a company should be ran. Every ranch or meat operation or just any farming operation has to go threw a check list of standards that they have to pass and when they dont pass they are shut down until their problems are fixed...You think Harris Ranch is bad? Go to Texas, ASK FOR A TOUR OF TYSON IN AMARILLO!...You will think twice about dogging on Harris Ranch, at least Harris Ranch supplies food and jobs for everyone and helps the economy..TYSON IS RAN BY IMATES FRESH OUT OF JAIL AND PRISON WHO ARE HANDED KNIFES TO SLICE AND DICE ANAIMALS.....at least Harris isnt like that! WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP IT? Causing more damage by ruining stuff. It clearly shows that people do not think about their actions before they do them.

And what is it for us to say that the animals live in "to crowded of space"...? Look how we live. Houses stacked right on top of eachother, crowded streets, ect. Just the same!

[jsmirman]

46. Yes, you live the same as these animals in factory farms

your statement is preposterous.

You wouldn't last three days in the conditions these animals are forced to live in, and neither would I.

And before you pop off with some nonsense, put your money where your bullshit comes out of. Go ahead and do it! Trade places with one of these animals! Let's fucking see it! You would be screaming holy murder for your "crowded streets" in twenty minutes.

How the fuck did I stumble on to the freep right here at DU?

Madness, your post is sheer madness.

[Codeine]

55. Oh bull-motherfucking-shit.

How many of us live in spaces so small that we can't even move? How many of us are up to our ankles in our own shit and piss?



I've lived in some small apartments, but do any of us live like this?



Do our boy children get treated this way?

[jsmirman]

59. Always

so hard to look at, but people should take a good hard look.

Liveinit, do you feel any shame for your ridiculous statement???

[Liveinit]

43. just shows

And just to show how ignorant some can be.....I was at a Cattlemen's meeting and some random man asked

"why do we need farms when I can just go to safeway and get my meat"

If you are not in the industry, you simply dont understand, and if you dont understand do your homework before you start to point your fingers and making threats

[jsmirman]

45. Fact: ZERO people have been injured by animal activists in America

I dare you to try to disprove that.

When you compare it to the murders, kidnappings, and countless acts of violence ON PEOPLE perpetrated by Anti-Abortion activists, the freedom to operate that they enjoy in comparison to the Big Ag supported witch hunt directed at animal advocates is a shameful perversion of this country's principles.

I am not saying I support this sort of action. That is a broader discussion, and one I have mixed feelings on. In a nutshell, I understand their frustration and loathe their targets, but taking my best reading of my gut, I suspect there's a lot of counter-productivity here.

I do think it is important to keep the point and the distinction of the subject line in mind when contemplating this issue.

And I dare anyone to show me an instance of physical injury to a human being from any form of animal activism in this country.

[slackmaster]

49. Financial and psychological injury count as injuries

...When you compare it to the murders, kidnappings, and countless acts of violence ON PEOPLE perpetrated by Anti-Abortion activists...

OK, animal rights people aren't quite as evil as anti-abortion extremists, but people who commit arson are all assholes.

[jsmirman]

51. Corporations are NOT PEOPLE, facilities are NOT PEOPLE

Inanimate shit simply does not equal people.

You don't like arsonists, which is a completely reasonable position. I'm not saying I disagree with that.

But stop trying to torture the categorization of stuff that is not violence to humans into the same grouping as actions THAT VIOLATE THE SANCTITY OF THE HUMAN BODY.

"Aren't quite as evil"??? Try "aren't in the same fucking universe."

Disagreeing with the tactics is reasonable; trying to act as though the two groups are cut from the same bolt of cloth is dishonest bullshit, is buying government/corporate propaganda, and is patently inaccurate.

[slackmaster]

56. Do you actually believe that individual people suffer no harm when property belonging to a business

...is destroyed?

[jsmirman]

60. You know damn well that's not what I said

so long as you can read.

I do believe, however, that I'd rather someone destroy my insured equipment than kill my son or daughter. Would you really have difficulty choosing between the two?

I also believe that the word "terror" is not used correctly here. These are crimes, and if perpetrators are caught - when you break the law, you should know the penalties and consequences.

But what are people "terrified" of? As a New Yorker who was here on September 11th, I say fuck you to anyone who calls this "terror."

I am not "terrified" of having my tractor burned to the ground. I will never be. If I ran a TRUE small local farm, I could see being really worried about (and even with insurance, I'm sure if, say, I had one tractor, it would be a significant problem to have it destroyed), but I wouldn't live in "terror" of it.

After September 11th, I can tell you that I damn sure lived in terror of TWO things: death by terror to myself/my family or destruction by terror of our HOME.

Crimes are crimes. I didn't say that I support that, and unless you are illiterate, I suspect you know that. I also don't support lumping it in with destruction of property belonging to large corporations. Corporations aren't people and they aren't "terrified" of this stuff. They are "angry" about this stuff, they want the perpetrators found and punished, but I guarantee you no one at corporate headquarters reacted with anything resembling my fear post-September 11th.

I don't disagree that fire and explosions seem particularly wrong and ill-advised. They don't seem easily controllable, and application of them for any sort of reason seems best placed in the hands of professionals. But I think it is notable that you can't even find me a badly sprained ankle that has resulted from the activities of animal activists. And we're not talking about five or ten actions. We are talking a very significant statistical universe here. When that number is still at zero, it isn't really plausible to claim that this is just coincidence.

[slackmaster]

61. Nice false choice

I do believe, however, that I'd rather someone destroy my insured equipment than kill my son or daughter. Would you really have difficulty choosing between the two?

That's not the issue.

But I think it is notable that you can't even find me a badly sprained ankle that has resulted from the activities of animal activists.

I think it's kind of small-minded to use such a restricted definition of harm. Property destruction is real harm - It negates the tangible result of the TIME and WORK of one or more people. Work can be redone, insurance can replace things (at the expense of higher premiums spread out among a large group of people,) but a person's lost time cannot be replaced.

[jsmirman]

93. A suggestion this might not be "terrorism":

(and by the way, I believe I have been extremely clear that arson and explosions are serious crimes and there are punishments for such crimes, and I don't have any problem with that whatsoever - what I question is the broad use of the word "terrorism&quot

Let me put it to you this way - Buffalo Wild Wings, who admittedly makes terrible advertisements (including one which any good sports fan finds to be the dumbest, most confounding ad ever directed at our target audience), is currently running an ad where a guy gets to leave work early because someone intentionally damages what looks to be an entire power grid.

This advertisement is supposed to be funny, but it involves massive, wanton property damage.

You can certainly find the ad to be "not funny" (I don't think it's particularly funny), but as far as I know, there have been no objections to or protests against its content.

Now replace what takes place in that commercial with a guy getting to leave work early because someone murders his boss or because the boss has to rush out early because someone has firebombed his home. Same response? No one objects to the content?

In my opinion - obviously not shared by many people here - when it comes to use of the word "terror", there is a difference. As someone who has experienced the "terror" I am familiar with firsthand, it is extremely relevant to the issue.

I saw people jumping to their deaths from a burning skyscraper. I watched thousands of people get murdered through a pair of binoculars. I think property damage is a crime, with corresponding penalties, as there absolutely should be. But I see a difference.

[slackmaster]

98. I'm not sure whose use of the words "terror" and "terrorism" you are railing against

It certainly wasn't mine, because I haven't said anything of the kind.

[jsmirman]

99. The Government's definition

that's what I mean, and that is what I am questioning (AETA, itself, is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act).

I will say that I am disturbed by the possibility that things have escalated in California to the point of threats of physical violence being made and possibly attacks on people's homes (on these attacks - it is unclear - outside of the flooding of Edythe London's home (terrible, totally unacceptable) - if any of these can truly be linked to animal activism; on the threats, the makeup of the "organization" of ALF and the corresponding confusing presentation of materials on their website makes it difficult to understand if they are claiming any of these threats of bodily harm - that they don't condemn it, I think sucks and seems to be a violation of one of their core principles).

I confess that if it has escalated to threats of bodily harm and worse, if it has escalated to the point where there is a clear tie between violent actions toward homes and animal activism, I would have to think that actually *is* terrorism.

But the information I have gotten back so far suggests only the flooding is really linked to any animal group, and that the "no injuries" fact is still fact. But I can't see any other way but to think that if they are bringing fire and explosions to people's homes, yes, it would seem to be a fact up against something that is just a matter of time. I really hope it is not the case.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. "...you can't even find me a badly sprained ankle..." Hmm.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/04/MNMI124HSI.DTL

Feldheim, whose townhouse was firebombed just after 5:30 a.m., uses mice in laboratory research on brain formation.

He told The Chronicle that he and his wife, along with their 7-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter, had to drop a ladder from the window of a second-floor bedroom to escape after smoke filled the home's first floor.

"Everyone is OK," Feldheim said in an e-mail. "The kids are taking it pretty well. My wife and I are very shaken up. I also injured both feet in the escape."

[jsmirman]

88. I don't believe there were ever any arrests made in that incident

which suggests the only thing linking it to animal activists is journalistic innuendo.

As this happened days before the prop 2 vote in California, apparently some believe that this was done by enemies of the animal movement who sought to weaken support for the pro-animal ballot measure.

However, I know nothing about this incident except what I just found online. I know people who can provide more substantial answers (journalists, not direct-action activists), and I will ask them about this and - if you are actually interested, will certainly report back what I hear from them.

[flvegan]

70. What do I win?

UCal Santa Cruz. Feldheim. Use Google to help you.

[jsmirman]

97. I don't think there is any proven link between that and animal activists

I don't think there have ever been any arrests made in the case.

No one has claimed the action.

So I don't know if you win anything. I am attempting to find more information than google provides from a few knowledgeable sources.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Can we assume your other posts are of similar accuracy?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/04/MNMI124HSI.DTL

...Feldheim, whose townhouse was firebombed just after 5:30 a.m., uses mice in laboratory research on brain formation.

He told The Chronicle that he and his wife, along with their 7-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter, had to drop a ladder from the window of a second-floor bedroom to escape after smoke filled the home's first floor.

"Everyone is OK," Feldheim said in an e-mail. "The kids are taking it pretty well. My wife and I are very shaken up. I also injured both feet in the escape."

[jsmirman]

89. As I said, no arrests made

no proven links between this incident and animal advocates, as best as I can tell.

I see from this post you are simply baiting, so I take it you won't have a sincere interest in anything further I can find out, but I will ask some qualified sources, nonetheless.

[LeftyMom]

62. Good.

That place is a shithole. Literally.

[Major Nikon]

67. Yes, terrorism is always good and we should celebrate it

That way it gives the oppostion a reason to point their finger and say anyone who is an advocate for sustainable agriculture and animal welfare is no better than any other scum of the earth terrorist. This certainly aids the nutbags' mission of being counterproductive to the very cause they claim to support.

[LeftyMom]

68. Property damage isn't terrorism.

[Major Nikon]

69. Do you really think this is as simple as property damage?

They put a timed bomb on a vehicle without any regard to human life. Their intent was to terrorize people to gain something they couldn't at the ballot box. That is the essence of terrorism.

[ceile]

72. Nice strawman. The "ballot box"? "Terrorism"?

Because there are so many of us who give a rats ass about the food we eat. Please.
Terrorism? Nice comparison....

[Major Nikon]

74. What exactly do you think terrorism is?

Terrorizing people for political gain doesn't count as terrorism in your book? I guess so long as they happen to be advocating a cause you might be sympathetic that must mean your definition gets skewed in their favor. That's assuming you even have a definition for such things. Nutbags who firebomb abortion clinics are cut from the same cloth as nutbags who firebomb cattle trucks. Both are terrorists.

[ceile]

75. I guess we're of a different mindset.

Stopping someone from continuing degrading, inhumane conditions of a sentient living being who they could just as well give humane living conditions to if they chose to? Nothing to do with people who want to take women's right's away. Nice try. I guess I'm a terrorist.

[Major Nikon]

76. I've heard better arguments from the anti-abortionists

Yet still their definition fails. Once you start injecting your own political beliefs into what does or doesn't count as terrorism, you have lost the ability to come up with any sort of objective definition.

So yes, I agree. We are definitely from a different mindset.

[ceile]

78. .

Agreed. Not biting.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Then these church burnings weren't terrorism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=258x10657

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3363953

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x402389

There are some defense attorneys you should be contacting about those unjust convictions and sentences...

<sarcasm mode to OFF>

[Major Nikon]

90. I wouldn't call that terrorism

Someone who burns a church generally doesn't do it to achieve a political goal. They do it because they are hateful bigots. So it looks more like a hate crime. Even though it's still worthy of stiffer penalties than just arson, everyone who terrorizes others isn't necessarily a terrorist.

People who burn cattle trucks are terrorists because they are terrorizing people in an attempt to achieve a political goal. In a way they are worse than many middle eastern terrorists. Although I don't advocate violence against civilians for any reason, at least you can say that many of those people live in areas where they don't have access to the political process. People here can petition for ballot issues and they can vote. They have free speech and a relatively free press.

[jsmirman]

92. Church = Production facility???

There are some religious authorities *you* should be contacting.

Equating burning a church with damage to a facility of commerce is intellectually dishonest. I also don't approve of either. I just see a difference between the two.

[Fla_Democrat]

63. What's the carbon footprint

on 14 burning trucks?

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. This is the "good" sort of arson. There isn't any.

[Fla_Democrat]

86. Is that like

cookie crumbs have no calories? Or, birthday cake doesn't count against a diet?

[Yo_Mama]

71. An ugly and criminal act

I don't see any moral justification for this.