WTF? USDA Classifies PETA as a Terrorist Threat

[Are_grits_groceries]

PETA is one of the most controversial activist groups operating today. The group's contentious media campaigns, undercover operations, infamous advertising, and high profile demonstrations have made them perhaps the most notorious--and most polarizing--nonprofit organization there is. But are they terrorists? According to the US Department of Agriculture, they are now.

And right when PETA was about to be able to call it quits, too. The USDA has just released a new security profile form (pdf), which it distributes to animal experimentation facilities. The form reveals that PETA has been classified as a terrorist threat by the US government--potentially opening up its members to prosecution as terrorists. According to Green is the New Red, an eco-activist rights website, the document was given to all facilities that conduct experiments on animals. They were asked to disclose whether they were the target of attacks or harassment from a list of terrorist groups--one of which, evidently, is PETA.
<snip>
That may be so. Even if it's not, the 'terrorist' categorization has some very troubling ramifications. For instance, according to the Sacramento Bee, four animal activists in California are currently facing terrorism charges for protesting at individual homes and creating fliers with names and addresses on them. Because they committed what amounts to trespassing, they've received some of the same charges leveled at groups that use bombs and carry out physical harm. While these protesting individuals' actions may very well have been illegal, do they really constitute terrorism?

We'll have to see what develops as more information is revealed--as it stands, listing PETA as domestic terrorists seems be more threatening to the general right for citizens to protest than anything else.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/peta-classified-terrorist-threat.php

PETA may be a lot of things, but I don't think terrorist is among them. Wonder what group will be next?

[mike_c]

1. terrorist is the new boogieman....

"Communist" was worn out.

[valerief]

2. Someone in DC wants to capture Pam Anderson, I guess. nt

[paulsby]

16. borat tried that

didn't work out so well.

[Ignis]

35. The USDA should learn from his mistake:

Next time, bring a bigger sack.

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Why is the USDA classifying ANYBODY as a terrorist threat?

How the fuck does that fall under their job description?

And beyond that, it certainly does seem that the government (whatever agency) sure tries a lot harder to find enemies on the left than it does the right. Is Fred Phelps' "church" considered a terrorist threat? What about that piece of shit in Tempe AZ? One of his cult members actually carried a loaded assault rifle to an Obama speech. Surely he's a terrorist, right?

Right? :wtf:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. It was not an assault rifle... just sayin' (n/t)

[benEzra]

28. Wasn't loaded, either. (n/t)

[jberryhill]

11. It didn't, if you look at the actual form in question

It is a questionnaire incident to facilities receiving funding under the APHIS program, and includes a number of multiple choice questions about facility security.

Some nitwit included PETA in a multiple choice list that also included "disgruntled workers" under the question:

"What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?"

So, the form reflects a list of things that whomever came up with the form might be considered a security risk by the people filling out the form. It is not some sort of "official determination of the USDA that PETA is a terrorist group", but far be it from me to get in the way of hyperventilating.

[Are_grits_groceries]

17. Actually, here's the question that lumps them in as terrorists:

B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.

< > Attack from international terrorists
< > Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-< > Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-< > Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-< > People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-< > Animal Defense League (ADL)
-< > Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-< > Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-< > Other (please specify): ____________________
< > Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/peta-classified-terrorist-threat.php

This is a lot different from the question you cited.

[Vinnie From Indy]

69. The question reminds me of the Monty Python sketch

in one of their movies. The Peoples Front of Judea members are sitting at in an ampitheatre at some event heaping scorn on some guy in another row because he left their group and formed the Judean Peoples Front. They kept yelling "SPLITTER" at him.

[jberryhill]

194. Yes, well, I'll bet the members of "Other (please specify)" are upset too!

Now that "Other (please specify)" has been officially designated by the USDA as a terrorist organization.

Putting together this questionnaire in order to fulfill whatever regulatory requirement was thrown in to confirm "security" arrangements did not likely rise high above the staff nitwit level.

[Nikki Stone1]

61. Anything involving threats to the food supply involve USDA

Also, USDA has a section called Rural Development that builds systems for water, broadband, and other vitals in rural under-served areas.

[Critters2]

186. The USDA encourages the biggest threat to clean water for rural

communities--factory farms and their shit lagoons. USDA policies have been discouraging real development in rural areas for decades. The only food supply the USDA cares about is that provided by corporate ag. The USDA is no friend to rural communities.

[Xenotime]

4. Imagine that PETA being lumped in with RW extremeists like the NRA

[NYC Democrat]

5. I wasn't aware that the USDA could list organizations as terrorist threats.

isn't that the job of the defense department and the department of homeland security?

[nosmokes]

6. VIlsack and the rest of Obama's Monsanto crew there can kiss my soil and

science loving organic ass. Compromise your moderate fucking shit into the grave. Again. Some more.

[Sebastian Doyle]

15. MonSatan.... now THERE is a true terrorist organization.

They're trying to poison the food supply of the entire fucking planet. If that ain't terrorism, I don't know what is.

[Echo In Light]

7. Phony WoT is a very real war OF terror against "enemies" of Empire's intere$ts

[htuttle]

9. "USDA Certified Terrorist"

Do they grade them like eggs and meat, too?

"Grade A"
"Medium"
"Fancy"

???

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. PETA is certainly a threat to dogs. Maybe not terrorists just worthless pieces of crap.

In 2005, PETA euthanized 1,946 companion animals in Virginia, out of 2,138 animals (or 91%) surrendered to them or picked up as strays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#cite_note-56


Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

[flvegan]

27. Clueless.

You should look into WHY PETA has euthanized these animals.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. No excuse for euthanizing over 90%.

[flvegan]

52. Really?

So you've looked into why that number is so high, then? Good. Please explain.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Laziness, cheapness and idiocy.

[flvegan]

54. And you drew that conclusion from...?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. The facts. DUH.

[flvegan]

57. Nope, I don't think so.

Obviously, you've enjoyed a couple visits to consumerfreedom or petakillsanimals or some other shitrag RW site.

Facts as to the reason why PETA euthanizes like they do fly in the face of your bullshit opinion.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Newsweek definitely a RW rag. LOL.

[flvegan]

60. So Newsweek went into the details why

PETA euthanizes? Care to share a link? You may well have been misled.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Already provided but here it is again.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

[flvegan]

67. That doesn't remotely go into why.

It just throws up numbers and quotes from no-kill advocates.

So...I guess we're back to my original response of "clueless"

Oh well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Topic was well covered, fair piece of journalism. PETA just can't give any good reasons.

[flvegan]

72. Clueless. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. You seem to be willfully ignorant. n/t

[flvegan]

77. You meant "well educated on the topic."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Nope. The facts in the story contradict you directly.

[flvegan]

85. Clueless.

There are no facts as to WHY in that story.

I don't suffer fools gladly. I'm done with you.

Wait...aren't you late for the nightly spamming gleeful "man shoots other man" stories in the gungeon?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. You seem to be willfully ignorant. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. Pot meet kettle.

[proteus_lives]

188. I feel that my lounge thread is relevant.

heh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9150464

[Critters2]

176. I always enjoy the justified murder stories. Must be a slow night for that. nt

[proteus_lives]

189. The Onion weighs in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9150464

Heh.

[TK421]

78. While I'm no fan of some of PETA's tactics, I would hardly classify them as a terrorist organization

this claim is ridiculous on it's face

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. Who here classified them as terrorists?

[yewberry]

96. Um, the OP?

The AETA...what this thread is about in the first place.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. The OP specifically said they didn't believe that.

[yewberry]

113. The topic of the original post

refers to the classification of peta as a terrorist organization.

Whatever the original poster believes, the topic of the original post is that classification.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. Who HERE classified them as terrorists? The USDA is not HERE. DUH.

[yewberry]

136. It's the main topic of the thread, DUH.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

137. So you thought the USDA actually came here and posted the story? LOL.

[yewberry]

149. Negative, Mr. Duh.

Forgive me for trying to stay on topic.

"LOL."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. I thought it was a simple enough question. Guess not.

[TK421]

103. thank you...I thought for a moment I wandered into another thread by mistake n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. PETA may be a lot of things, but I don't think terrorist is among them. How did you miss that?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. PETA may be a lot of things, but I don't think terrorist is among them. How did you miss that?

[TK421]

126. someone stutters, apparently

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Someone here can't read simple sentences.

[TK421]

98. I was referring to the OP claim of the USDA claim

you must have missed part of the OP

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. The OP specifically said they didn't believe that.

[TK421]

114. Ummmm...yeah!!!! There is also a LINK in that OP...perhaps you missed that, too?

:banghead: there is a story there!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. Who HERE classified them as terrorists? The USDA is not HERE. DUH.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. PETA may be a lot of things, but I don't think terrorist is among them. How did you miss that?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

155. Thanks for standing up for the rights of someone you don't like.

That's one of the better tests, I think. :patriot:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. He didn't make that claim the OP did.

[TK421]

164. "DAVE!!!!! IT'S TIME FOR MY BEN-GAY TREATMENT"!!!!!

DAVE!!!!!! :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

165. Hmmm. A little homophobic reference. Aren't you a peach of a progressive?

[yewberry]

59. Just so you know

(because obviously you don't) peta isn't an animal adoption service. They provide euthanasia services for communities that can't afford it themselves. That is why their euthanasia rate is so high and why they call themselves a shelter of last resort. In other words, they take the animals who would otherwise get a bullet in the head and give them a decent death.

[flvegan]

62. Aw dammit.

You beat me to it.

[yewberry]

64. Sorry, man, I was going for the obvious.

Or were you waiting for the pdf from CCF to be posted as "evidence?"

[flvegan]

73. I wanted some actual research.

Instead, we get a lousy, undetailed, unresearched page and a quarter from Newsweek.

Oh well.

[yewberry]

99. Actual research?

About peta...at DU?

:rofl:

[Ignis]

134. This one time, on the internets, I heard that PETA kills animals!

And it's gotta be true, because the guy saying it got paid big bucks to say it!

:crazy:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

150. So Newsweek is lying?

Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

[tonysam]

107. They are as trustworthy as PETA.

Read founder and crackpot Ingrid Newkirk's writings. Read Peter Singer's. Singer was the direct influence on nutjob Newkirk when she co-founded PETA. Singer HATES and wants to kill the profoundly disabled while trying to put personhood on animals.

[Ignis]

131. You are completely misrepresenting Singer's works.

Write him; he's quite likely to write back and explain in detail how you've misrepresented his views.

(Or you could use The Magic Google and find one of the countless interviews or speeches he's given on the subject. But who am I kidding?)

He neither hates the disabled nor does he want to kill them. If you don't believe me, ask him.

[yewberry]

141. Oh, well, gee!

Alexander Graham Bell suppressed the Deaf community. Guess I shouldn't use a phone.

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, so maybe I shouldn't use birth control.


PS You should read Singer's work more closely for a better understanding.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. "we can find homes for virtually all of the healthy animals we are now killing."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

[flvegan]

71. Winograd is delusional.

Completely delusional. His (and most of his colleagues) pie in the sky belief only forces other shelters to push the needle. At least Nathan has clean hands. Not.

Next?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. Except all those shelters that have save rates of 85% +. Compared to PETA killing 85%.

We see who is delusional.

[flvegan]

82. Good.

Now go take the kill rate of all the surrounding shelters. Find the "dump" rate. When you hang that no-kill sign (if that is in fact the rule, which much of the time, it isn't) it pushes the "dirty work" to someone else. There are very, very few areas where the demand for a shelter pet is higher than the supply.

VERY, very few.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. That's what PETA should be doing with it's large bank accounts saving dogs not killing them.

[yewberry]

133. So a bullet to the head is good enough for animals in poor communities?

You don't think peta should provide euthanasia services for communities that can't provide humane euthanasia?

Awesome.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. So you think PETA should kill 90%+ of companion animals instead working to find some homes?

[yewberry]

147. Again, peta is not an animal adoption service.

You think no one should be providing those euthanization services?

Animal adoption services should do all they can to find homes. And I think they do. Peta does something different because it's necessary. And groups like peta are part of the reason that adoption service organizations can focus on finding homes instead of having to euthanize animals themselves.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. PETA should spend more of it's large amounts of money on shelters and adoptions.

[yewberry]

153. Your position is that no organization should provide

humane euthanization services for communities that cannot afford that, then?

Peta should become a shelter and adoption organization and forgo its spay and neuter programs and euthanization programs, is that it?

Got a suggestion for who will pick up the slack, or is it just easier and cuddlier to ignore pragmatic beginning and end of the animal overpopulation problem we have in this country?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

161. All black and white with you eh. Can't see the subtlety in any position. Shame.

[yewberry]

170. Nyet, not black & white. This is a pragmatic issue, not a theoretical one.

We're talking about the real world here, not what you or someone else might think peta should do.

Here it is: peta provides euthanization services for communities that cannot afford to do so themselves. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't do so? Are you suggesting that they become an adoption service, leaving the work they do undone? I'm not so comfortable with that, having seen how animals are killed when there are no euthanization services available. I've fished bages of dead puppies out of a pond--it's not good.

Look, Dave, I don't want to see animals euthanized either. None of us do, regardless of what you think of peta. What's the solution, then?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

172. The solution is not killing 90% of them.

[yewberry]

173. Again, you're ignoring reality.

Peta is not a shelter.

They provide humane euthanization. If they euthanize 90% of the animals sent to them for euthanization, that's a pretty good record. THEY ARE NOT AN ADOPTION SERVICE.

You might want them to be, but that doesn't change reality.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

193. As I have said they should spend more of their money toward sheltering and adoption services.

If they aren't willing to do that then they shouldn't bitch when people are critical of their policy.

[yewberry]

90. The rates are high because they are limited-intake.

No-kill shelters don't take all animals. They only take healthy animals, and they take only a limited number. Peta takes animals that aren't going to new homes.

I applaud the work and intentions of no-kills, but if they took all animals, they'd have lower numbers. Conversely, if peta were providing animal adoption instead of euthanasia services, they'd have higher numbers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. How do you turn 85% saves into no kill?

[yewberry]

110. The person you quoted

is an advocate of "no-kill" limited-intake shelters.

Simple.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. The article referred to much more than that. Next time read it before commenting.

[yewberry]

175. Read it.

Please respond with more than a subject line.

[tonysam]

94. "No kill" shelters are the trend these days. There is NO excuse for wholesale

euthanizing of pets. PETA and HSUS believe in it because they oppose animal domestication. Their supporters will deny it, but it's no use.

[yewberry]

95. You seriously believe that?

As much as we want to, we can't find homes for 4 million animals a year. Limited-intake shelters mean well, and they do great things on the local level, but they do nothing for the millions of animals that they turn away.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. You seriously believe we need to kill 85% to 97% of companion animals?

[tonysam]

102. No kill is the trend. Overpopulation is a lie perpertrated by nutjobs

who want to take away the right of people to have animals in their lives, or to eat meat, or to buy leather, etc.

[flvegan]

106. So I can put you down for roughly 5 million unwanted pets, then?

Where should I have them delivered?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. I have fostered over 200 dogs in the last 2 years. You do your share I do mine

[flvegan]

118. Excellent. Thank you for fostering.

Foster homes are easily the most important volunteer aspect to any shelter or rescue. I applaud you on that. I run a rescue, so I say that in all sincerity, regardless of what words we've had earlier. I hope you continue to dedicate your time and space (and likely money) to helping out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. Why don't I just take my right wing foolish ass in and check on the terminally ill foster I have.

Pardon me if I question your sincerity.

[flvegan]

129. Question it if you want.

It makes no difference to me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

130. Thanks for the confirmation.

[yewberry]

156. Hey, just so you know

question his sincerity all you want, but flvegan runs a dog rescue organization for at-risk pooches.

Hate peta, hate me, hate him, but he's for real on the dog rescue issue. If you are helping dogs, he's 100% sincere. No kidding.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. I don't hate you or him. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

[yewberry]

167. Beside the point. I was being dramatic.

Be mad, disagree, whatever.

I just wanted you to know. Flvegan's a dog guy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. Unlike TK up thread I can disagree with people without making it personal.

Reasonable people can disagree.

[yewberry]

145. Please be aware

that you are mistaken.

I have personally fished bags of dead puppies out of ponds. I have personally hauled corpses of euthanized unwanted animals into a freezer for disposal because there was no home for them.

This country kills millions of unwanted animals every year. You really dispute that?

[redqueen]

121. So that person who worked at a shelter who said they could have found homes...

they were just lying to make PETA look bad?

[flvegan]

132. Why didn't they then?

Why request help from and then turn animals over to a shelter of last resort...a WELL KNOWN one in the area if it would have been a cakewalk to find them homes?

[yewberry]

135. Are you referring to a specific case

or are you referring to the quote claiming that we can find homes for 4 millions unhomed animals annually?

[Ignis]

140. Have you googled Rick Berman yet?

Because I don't think you have.

[tonysam]

93. Don't tell them any facts, please.

The reason PETA kills animals and is big on spaying and neutering is because they eventually want ALL domesticated animals eliminated. Domestication of animals is slavery according to these crackpots.

They and HSUS are embarrassing. Celebrities who support this crap ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[flvegan]

104. I'm happy ignorance isn't painful.

I'd be worried about you.

[Critters2]

177. If ignorance were painful, maybe someone would be working toward a cure.

As it is, I don't see much progress on that front.

[Ignis]

139. Stunning ignorance. PETA isn't an abolitionist org. (nt)

[tonysam]

198. Yes, it is. Newkirk is in favor of it. She's the co-founder.

Quit apologizing for these nutjobs, please.

[Ignis]

201. Newkirk can be in favor of eating babies, for all I care.

PETA is not an abolitionist organization, and you're not going to make it so by repeating your talking point over and over and over again. If you don't understand the difference between abolitionism and welfare approaches to AR, read a fucking book.

An apple that you call an orange is still an apple.

[quiller4]

12. I think a group that uses arson as a weapon against research facilities is a terrorist organization.

[kestrel91316]

14. +100. And there is that not-so-small matter of the dean of TN's vet school

(IIRC) who was assassinated some years back.......

[superduperfarleft]

19. How was PETA involved in that? n/t

[Ignis]

21. The short answer, of course, is "You're all the same!"

:eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

22. Well, these are the same idiots who call PETA a "radical" organization

which anyone with even a basic understanding of the concept of animal rights would disagree with.

[Ignis]

24. That's the problem with binary thinking.

If the only categories you have available are "terrorist" and "not terrorist," how can you possibly differentiate between something that is ultimately a marketing organization (PETA) and groups that are involved in ground-level anti-property direct action.

This is the same craptastic approach to the WoT that resulted in anti-war Friends (Quakers) groups being monitored by the FBI and DHS.
:banghead:

[Blue_Tires]

119. i was just about to mention the quakers, lol

[Ignis]

143. Could you beeeeeeee-lieve that?

I mean, if I had to make a list of dangerous groups that threaten America, and if I had to rank it from 1 to 1 billion, the Friends would still come in at one billion and one.

:crazy:

[Blue_Tires]

209. i remember a few years ago talking with my relatives about working with PETA

and they were all worried the group was being tagged by DHS...the example about the quakers was my rebuttal...

[tonysam]

120. I think co-founder Newkirk has ties to the ALF, and that may be why

it is lumped in with the terrorist groups.

Believe me, veterinarians would be out of business if PETA and HSUS had their way, for they despise animal ownership--hell, it's slavery to these crackpots.

The tragic thing is many people, especially young people, are highly susceptible to PETA's bullshit.

[tonysam]

138. I am right about Newkirk and the ALF. From Wikipedia

Newkirk has said of the Animal Liberation Front: "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out.<9>

Newkirk has been criticized for publicising actions carried out in the name of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), something that she freely admits to.<27> She has said that she supports the goals of the ALF, arguing that "Not until black demonstrators resorted to violence did the national government work seriously for civil rights legislation ... In 1850 white abolitionists, having given up on peaceful means, began to encourage and engage in actions that disrupted plantation operations and liberated slaves. Was that all wrong?"<9> She has said that she understands, but shrinks from, actions that involve arson.“ I do support getting animals out in the same way I would have supported getting human slaves out, child labor, sex slaves, the whole lot. But I don’t support burning. I don’t support arson. I would rather that these buildings weren’t standing, so on some level I understand. I just don’t like the idea of that. Maybe that is wishy-washy of me, because I don’t want those buildings standing if they are going to hurt anyone. And the ALF has never hurt mice nor mare.<28> ”


She has been accused of having had advance knowledge of one ALF action. During the 1995 trial of Rod Coronado, in connection with an arson attack at Michigan State University (MSU), U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer alleged that Newkirk had arranged, in advance of the attack, to have Coronado send her stolen documents from the university and a videotape of the action.<29>

link

THIS is why PETA is lumped in with terrorist organizations. Newkirk is co-founder of the organization. People need to realize PETA and HSUS are NOT in the business of welfare for animals. They are for animal liberation or animal rights, the latter of which can't exist because rights is something designated by humans for humans. These organizations are scum, no two ways about it, and if the public knew what these outfits are REALLY all about, nobody would give a dime to them.

They don't give a shit about animals but want to force a fucking CULT of veganism on the American people. They remind me of the people who tried to force prohibition on the American people.

[flvegan]

154. Newkirk supports liberation, it's true.

But then, so do I. Go ahead, call me a terrorist.

"CULT of veganism" :rofl:

"I do support getting animals out in the same way I would have supported getting human slaves out, child labor, sex slaves, the whole lot. But I don’t support burning. I don’t support arson. I would rather that these buildings weren’t standing, so on some level I understand. I just don’t like the idea of that. Maybe that is wishy-washy of me, because I don’t want those buildings standing if they are going to hurt anyone. And the ALF has never hurt mice nor mare."

That quote is from your wiki reference.

[Ignis]

158. "CULT of veganism"

You win the prize!

[tonysam]

195. Choice quote from Ingrid about animal domestication

“I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223

Newkirk and PETA can go to hell. It will be a cold day in hell that I will not be allowed to have animals in my life.

[superduperfarleft]

18. When has PETA ever done that? n/t

[Ignis]

20. Proof? Links? Evidence? Anything? (nt)

[flvegan]

26. When did PETA use arson as a weapon?

[G_j]

29. PETA is bad, it's OK to make up shit about them

:sarcasm:

[tonysam]

199. It isn't made up when you go right to the source. PETA lies about its true aims.

They want to abolish animal industries. That is a fact. They are not a humane society or an animal welfare group. They are about animal "rights."

Read Newkook's writings and statements. She co-founded the group. The group shares her aims. End of story.

[Ignis]

202. What source? What proof do you have? Support your bullshit. (nt)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. When they gave $64,000 to Roy Coronado.

The ALF terrorist who burned down a lab in Michigan.

[flvegan]

41. You mean

loaned to an accused activist's defense fund. You speak as if they paid him to do it.

Try again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Did they give him the money...

because they think he didn't do it, or because they think he did?

[flvegan]

44. Why don't you ask them?

Rather than making baseless accusations taken from information you Googled, why not go to the source? I know what I've been told.

Now, considering that both the FBI and the IRS have gone up PETA's ass with a telescope, I'd say that you'll find that PETA loaned an accused activist money to defend himself. Do have a problem with helping someone achieve a fair trial?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. I don't have a problem with people getting a fair trial.

And I don't have a problem with suspecting PETA of supporting terrorism.

Do you? Everytime PETA holds a klan rally or does some stupid thing you always apologize for it saying how smart they are and there's no such thing as bad publicity. So why draw the line at terrorism?

[flvegan]

49. Accusing goes beyond suspecting.

But then, likely your dearly departed DU twin, that's your style. No matter.

Do I have a problem suspecting PETA of supporting terrorism? As I've pretty clearly stated, I don't. You lost me at PETA holding a "klan rally" but again, like your departed twin, I'm not surprised by it.

Have a good night.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. I'm pretty sure PETA has not been formally charged yet.

"You lost me at PETA holding a 'klan rally'"

Yeah, well, that's where PETA lost a lot of people.

[redqueen]

86. LOL

PETA sucks so much ass. Fuck those woman-hating batshit crazy assholes.

[proteus_lives]

190. The Onion weighs in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9150464

[baldguy]

83. Gee, maybe they thought he should have the opportunity to defend himself.

[Ignis]

160. Only terrorists would set up a defense fund.

Q.E.D. :crazy:

[Cid_B]

74. It does get confusing...

I thought they meant they 25K they gave to his father.

[Ignis]

80. Aaaaaaaand...it's crickets. Figures. (nt)

[Critters2]

179. In common parlance, this is what we call "a lie". nt

[Ignis]

13. Well, they must be doing something right, then.

Thanks for posting this, AGG. I know a lot of DUers hate PETA more than they hate war (apparently and surprisingly), so it's heartening to see someone really get the broader implications of this post-9/11 "terra terra booga booga" bullshit.

:patriot:

[Are_grits_groceries]

30. I'm not fond of PETA,

but terrorists??? If they can stretch the definition that far, it is already so elastic that who knows what other people it can reach?

[flvegan]

31. Go read up on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

See if you don't get the chills, not only from the text, but from the views of the ACLU, etc.

[Are_grits_groceries]

32. Well, nevermind about stretching the definition of a terrorist.

They made such a broad, amorphous category that they can just about pick up anybody they want and charge them.

This is the 'backdoor method.' Put the crime and penalty somewhere besides the Patriot Act, and then spring it on people when needed. You can never have too many laws that take away our rights.

[Ignis]

33. Yeah, I don't care if people love or hate PETA, but ...

Terrorists? :eyes: Talk about a slippery slope the size of the Grand Canyon!

So I'm just taking the time to thank a fellow DUer for standing up for what's right, even (or perhaps especially) when you don't have a horse in the race.

:hi:

[Are_grits_groceries]

36. Thanks, and BTW

EVERYBODY has a horse in this race whether they know it or not. PETA is only one entry.:hi:

[Ignis]

37. See? Just the fact that you realize the broader implications...

Gets you one of these: :hug:

[Taverner]

23. To them, they would be a terrorist org

Since they seek to eliminate the meat trade

That's 75% of what the USDA deals with

But it would make us more ethical if we became a Vegetarian society

(Note: I am a total hypocrite here. I eat meat and love doing so. But I'm wrong - its unethical to do so)

[Metta]

25. Is this change we can believe in? Where's the new guy? Staying out of the drama? Passive aggressi

on. Who's in charge?

[mitchum]

34. That is absolute horseshit upon the part of the USDA

Yes...I just defended PETA

[Ignis]

40. And on this day, Satan is ice-skating to work.

;)

[redqueen]

125. I don't see how it makes sense either...

I hate them, but I'd be curious to see the reason why they are considered terrorists.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. PETA? Terrorist?

This must be a left over decision from the Bush administration that Obama & Co. haven't had time to review.

Excuse me while I order a prime rib for dinner (I'm not at all sympathetic to PETA's goals), but if they're terrorists then I'm a retired kamikaze pilot. They're annoying and little more.

[The Straight Story]

43. Here is their new ad :) Makes me want to go to church

[redqueen]

48. Oh yeah... at least half the audience can lap up the sexist objectification from PETA.

:puke:

[Rhythm]

185. When in doubt, resort to T&A...

:eyes:

[proteus_lives]

191. The Onion weighs in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9150464

[ecstatic]

46. Who among us would even dare wear a fur coat?

Yes, Peta has successfully terrorized people and forced them to change their habits.

[Ignis]

181. Only assholes* wear fur.

* = Excepting, of course, people trying to eke out a subsistence-level living. I'm a vegan, but I would have cut open the tonton to save Luke, too.


And besides which, who really wants to look like a tarty Russian mobster trophy wife? That's so '80s, sweetie darling.

[Lilith Velkor]

187. I would.

I've always wanted a chance to mace one of those fucks. :evilgrin:

[depakid]

47. Meanwhile, real teerorsts- food poisoners like the evecutives from Peanut Corp- who acttually kill

and sicken thousands of Americans and damage legitimate businesses walk around scot free.

This despite indisputable evidence that they INTENTIONALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY sold contaminated products all across the country.

Heck of a job, Holder.

[galileoreloaded]

56. Tase em' till they vomit....thats what I say...

:sarcasm:

go get em' boys......

[bridgit]

65. The camel's nose - corps intend to make it illegal to capture & publish...

documentation from the innards of a corporate operation i.e. slaughterhouse rules, as an infringement upon their corporate person-hood - especially where it pertains to the food chain. I understand the need to keep Coke & Col. Sanders' home-spun-secrets secure :eyes: but food corp peeps do not want people to know what is possible between the e coli and amphibian spinach so it's easier for them to slip a lobbyist 100K and have activism against marauding corporatism declared: a terrorist activity, sadly...

Without progressive, forward-thinking change, there will be more of this

[TK421]

144. NOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT THAT !!!!!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!

[bridgit]

151. Anything but what?

[rucky]

70. How about Monsanto?

[baldguy]

92. But they're a *business*, silly.

They don't intentionally terrorize & kill people for a political agenda.

They do it to make a profit.

[alittlelark]

112. +10000

[tonysam]

88. They aren't a benign group. They're extremists.

People on DU need to realize this crackpot group is NOT for animal welfare.

[Ignis]

169. These words--they do not mean what you think they mean.

PETA is most definitely a pro-animal-welfare organization.

Hate them if you want, but don't call an apple an orange and expect us to buy it.

[LeftyMom]

124. This thread is cracking me the fuck up.

It's just so ignorant! I don't even fucking like PETA (seriously, do not get me started) but it's just really, really stupid to say that they're extreme, as people on this thread have done.

[TK421]

128. Well..for what it's worth I've voiced what would be considered here a fairly neutral opinion

and gotten flamed by one ass-carrot.....just go see if you're curious but this doesn't matter anymore

[yewberry]

159. NOOOO! PETA terrorists might send a strongly-worded letter!

Terrorist bastards!

[Ignis]

178. ...

:spray:

[Hannah Bell]

146. i believe this was actually part of the fallout from the patriot act. i remember

some discussion at the time.

including the possibility that *any* group could be so classified.

[yewberry]

163. Yeah, actually you're right.

The AETA passed and essentially allowed any group to be considered a "terrorist" threat if they created a potential for any economic loss for an animal enterprise, so anyone who calls for a boycott of any kind could fall into that category.

:crazy:

[snake in the grass]

152. k/r

[johnaries]

166. They are terrorists, extremists, and give other anti-animal cruelty

groups a "bad name". They don't further the "cause", they set it backwards. Whether or not they "should" be shut down, I can't say. But I wish they were.

[Critters2]

180. In what way are we (I'm a member of PETA) terrorists? nt

[tonysam]

200. Who cares if YOU are a member? Members of this group are ignorant.

It is a fact the co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, HAS ties to the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist group. I am sorry if this bursts your naive bubble, but PETA is hardly a benign group of people who pull crazy publicity stunts. They are an abolitionist group.

[Critters2]

211. We are not a terrorist group. PETA has never hurt a human being.

This terrorist bullshit is because the meat industry, which has Vilsack in its pocket, is scared. I enjoy seeing the meat industry running scared. It's about time.

[Ignis]

182. How, exactly, are PETA members "terrorists?" (nt)

[tonysam]

196. The co-founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, has longstanding ties

to the Animal Liberation Front, a terrorist organization. There is little doubt of PETA's real aims, which is wholesale elimination of animal domestication in the name of "liberation" and "animal rights." PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, the latter of which is NOT an animal welfare group, are extremists who have managed to take the millions they extort from ignorant donors and create a clever P.R. campaign which is nothing but propaganda masking their true aims.

These two groups are NOT benign. They have declared war on animal industries in the name of their crackpot beliefs, and they have won victories. They despise animals and people who have them, and they will do just about anything to achieve their goals, which would have virtually NO support if the public, including celebrities, knew the truth.

Of course PETA kills animals. It's consistent with their beliefs. When these members are of the twisted belief that domesticated animals are slaves because all animals are the same, including humans, then it makes sense to eliminate as many pets (I fucking REFUSE to use the PETA label of "companion animals" for "pets") as possible, including employing wholesale euthanasia and pushing for breed-specific laws and spaying and neutering of animals. Pets eventually die out and people will no longer be able to have them.

[Ignis]

197. Links? Proof? Support? Anything other than opinion?

I understand you're on a personal anti-PETA crusade. That's nice for you. But that still doesn't mean you've demonstrated in the slightest that PETA is in any way a terrorist organization.

Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. Provide real evidence or retract your lies.

[winyanstaz]

174. K & R,,,,,

If you advocate for animal rights...you are a terrorist.
If you speak about the Constitution too much....you are a terrorist.
If you speak out about what the government is doing wrong..you are a terrorist.
If you carry a camera you could be a terrorist or if you try to sketch any building or anything the powers that be don't want you to or take a picture of it on your cell phone.
If you carry a lap top, a cell phone and try to speak to anyone protesting via these instuments...you are a terrorist and can be arrested.
You can be arrested for what you wear if the powers that be don't like it.
You can be arrested for what you MIGHT do. (just ask the people arrested in Minnesota before the RNC.
There is a lot more that will mark you as a terrorist...so read the Patriot Act carefully as well as the homesecurity handbook so you wont be a terrorist.
and by the way...you are probably on a terrorist list already for being a member of this or any other freedom loving site.

[Ignis]

183. First they came for the Friends...

It's amazing what we're willing to sacrifice in the name of Security Theatre.

[winyanstaz]

207. yup...and it pisses me off to see how many put up with it too.

[Ignis]

208. Don't you feel safer yet?

We're going to win the War on Terra any day now.

Yup, any day now. :eyes:

[winyanstaz]

217. hehee...um sure :P any day now....

[aikoaiko]

184. I wouldn't trust a member of PETA anywhere near my animal lab.

Some do-gooders kept trying to release my pigeons from my outdoor aviary. Little did they know that after an afternoon of lying free they would all come back looking for food. I would lose a day of research, but I my pigeons always came home to roost.

[JoeyT]

192. This isn't actually all that surprising.

Not when you consider the amount of money and effort the Center for Consumer Freedom has put toward convincing people the HSUS and PETA are terrorist organizations. The asshats of the CFCF have put me in the unenviable position of having to repeatedly defend PETA and HSUS, for which I'll never forgive them. Now the USDA can share in some of that blame.


(Apologies to the mods if I'm breaking an unwritten rule by linking to this many things at once.)
More information on the CFCF:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PetaKillsAnimals.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom


Websites owned and run by the CFCF or their owner/members: Yes, this is where most of the anti-PETA/HSUS crap comes from and as much as I loathe the shill card, it actually applies here. I post this in the hopes people will stop using their talking points, since they're not exactly the most honest people in the world.:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ Every right wing talking point in the book.
http://www.thetruthabouttransfat.com/ Trans fats are actually the most healthy food on the planet, you tofu eating scum!
http://www.abionline.org/ Drinking and driving is apparently not only fun, but safe too!
http://www.epionline.org/ An oppressed and minimally paid worker is a happy worker! These assholes are one of the major oppositions to health care reform, by the way.
http://www.rottenacorn.com/ Yeah, no comment necessary for this.

These are the people that led the charge to convince the world that PETA/HSUS are terrorists. Those ads and articles people upthread spoke of were sponsored by these people. I'm guessing the "terrorism" accusation was too.

Edited to add: Damn, I forgot to mention that www.petakillsanimals.com is also run by the CFCF.

[Ignis]

203. Thanks for standing up for someone you don't like.

I'm amazed at how many DUers are willing to swallow Berman's lies whole.

Love PETA or hate them, but don't let yourself be suckered by paid shills.

And welcome to DU. :hi:

[fascisthunter]

204. it's the new trend... corporations pressuring government to make activists into terrorists

pretty ridiculous...

[PVnRT]

205. The department of agriculture? US dairy association?

[Critters2]

212. Dept of Agriculture. Vilsack shilling for the meat undustry.

Just like he did as governor.

[dembotoz]

206. damn--so i think i might have contributed money to a terrorist organization

Does this mean i can't fly on airlines anymore??

[tonysam]

210. I wouldn't make light of the fact Ingrid Newkook has ties to the ALF

You are giving--wasting--money on an organization which has as its ultimate goal the complete abolition of animal domestication. That's what animal rights IS. The naysayers on this board know what I am posting is true. That's why I am totally opposed to PETA, HSUS, and all of their lying ilk. They don't tell the truth. They pretend they are an animal welfare organization like ASPCA when in fact they are not.

[Critters2]

214. Animal "domestication" too often equals torture. nt

[Ignis]

216. Whee, more nuttery! What has HSUS lied about? (nt)

[Critters2]

213. I'm a card-carrying member of a terrorist organization, apparently!

And all because I think animals deserve to be treated well. I'm evil! Evil, I tells ya!

[loyalkydem]

215. Why

can't do that with some of the anti-abortion folks. Peta has pissed me off in the past but I don't think they deserve that.