Animal-rights icon suggests scientists die - Assassinate scientists

[dArKeR]

THE OBSERVER , LONDON
Monday, Jul 26, 2004,Page 6

A top adviser to Britain's two most powerful animal-rights protest groups caused outrage on Saturday by claiming the assassination of scientists working in biomedical research would save millions of animals' lives.

To the fury of groups working with animals, Jerry Vlasak, a former trauma surgeon and prominent figure in the anti-vivisection movement, told the Observer: "I don't think you'd have to kill too many . I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives."

Shac, which is campaigning for the closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe's largest animal experimentation center, has close links with Vlasak. He has also advised Speak, the organization which last week forced out the contractor building a ?18 million (US$33 million) primate research laboratory in Oxford.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/26/2003180536

Has the radical given rise to insanity or has the right-wing destruction of the Earth given rise to the radical?

[WindRavenX]

1. Ok, this is crap

I am all for animal rights, but these tactics are exactly like the extreme fundie anti-abortion terrorists.
This is f**ked up. Plain and simple.

[Sugarbleus]

2. I totally agree... well said WindRaven... That movement has

become a "religion"... just as you allegorized.

[yardwork]

3. Yep. Just as bad as advocating the bombing of abortion clinics

Interestingly, extremists tend to flip to the other extreme when they change their minds. There is a lot of similarity in zealot-like thinking on the far right and the far left. Neither extreme is characterized by tolerance or thoughtful discourse.

The idea that "killing them all" will solve any problems reminds me of the freepers and their "nuke em all" idiocy.

Stupid and scary.

[WindRavenX]

6. Exactly

Neither extreme is characterized by tolerance or thoughtful discourse.
When one uses force, the message is lost. Again, animal rights groups are for the most part peaceful and non-violent, and I hate to see the message get lost due to the foolish and dangerous actions of a few fringe groups.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Animal Rights Campaigner Denies Calling for Violent Action

Sun 25 Jul 2004



printer friendly
6:55pm (UK)
Animal Rights Campaigner Denies Calling for Violent Action

By Jamie Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News


An animal rights campaigner tonight denied calling for scientists to be killed after the Home Secretary threatened to stop him coming to Britain. David Blunkett asked officials to examine comments attributed to American Jerry Vlasak saying assassinating vivisectors could save millions of animals’ lives.

But Dr Vlasak tonight furiously insisted he had not called for the action. He said he spent his entire professional life saving lives and had not encouraged the killings.
(snip)

“I was outraged by the article stating that I, a medical doctor who spends my entire life saving lives, was calling for or encouraging the assassination or killing of any being, human or non human,” he said.
(snip)

Mr Blunkett asked officials to check the authenticity of the reports in today’s Observer newspaper to see if Dr Vlasak – a top adviser to animal rights groups – should be allowed to visit Britain.
(snip/...)

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3253085
(Free registration required)

[GeronimoSkull]

5. more

http://insidehls.com/

“I am not encouraging or calling for this. I am simply stating that the animal rights movement is and has been the most peaceful and restrained movement the world has ever known considering the amount of terror, abuse and murder done to innocent animals for greed and profit."

http://insidehls.com/

[mom cat]

9. Thanks for posting this clarification. I think that we should give him

a chance to present his views.

[rman]

7. way to paint animal rights activists as terrorists

Certain powers have an interest is achieving just that.
Even in oh so progressive The Netherlands they'v tried that (and failed so far)
All they'd need is agent provocateur or two within animal rights groups.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Actually, they HAVE no people plotting against our gummint

and they are inventing "enemies," just as they claimed Iraqiis threw babies out of incubators, and Saddam Hussein fully intended to blow us to kingdom come.

They have NO threats to us to destroy. Russia gave up. No one here is capable of taking on a government bought and paid for by energy and weaponry industries, etc., etc. and they MUST have someone to call an ongoing threat in order to keep their stupid, nasty games going.

No one can actually fight them, no one has the power. They even seem to have access to mercenaries BEYOND our own citizen armed forces. They lie to keep leading the weakest minded among us to believe they must vote for them every time to keep protected from their silly, fictitious bogey men.

They are holding the world ransom, and everyone has to go along with them, or they start killing us off, and pretending some new invented "enemy" did it.

What a bunch of bastards. Losers. Morans!

ABC article on Operation Northwoods, brain spasm from our military chiefs:
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
(snip)

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
(snip/...)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If this kind of national policy seemed just fine to our Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 1960's, are we to assume they are much more decent now, more complete human beings, more mature, more evolved? Hell, NO.

I'm certain they are STILL doing these same things. Remember, it took almost 4 decades until Bamford was able to find out about this rot.

[absolutezero]

10. i'm feeling spiteful today

so I'm going to eat a big juicy steak in his honor :evilgrin:

people like him are the ones who give liberals a bad name

[Walt Starr]

11. Well, this certainly qualifies as a terroristic tactic

Yeah, I agree animals should be treated more humanely, but assassination is certainly not the answer and ranks right up there with bombing a restaurant.