Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [HLSsucks] The Shaklee bombing: How should the animal rights movement respond?

Expand Messages
  • veggiegirl@shaw.ca
    I would like to say thank you to everyone who has enough courage to actually stand up for the animals and do something NOW. Writing letters never freed a black
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I would like to say thank you to everyone who has enough courage to actually stand up for the animals and do something NOW.

      Writing letters never freed a black slave.

      Thank you for having nerve that most of us don't.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: wildtimber2112@...
      Date: Thursday, October 2, 2003 7:23 pm
      Subject: [HLSsucks] The Shaklee bombing: How should the animal rights movement respond?

      > According to yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle,
      > (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
      > bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/01/BA252071.DTL), an "animal
      > rights" group calling itself Revolutionary Cells sent an anonymous
      > e-mail
      > claiming that it perpetrated last Friday's bombing at the Shaklee
      > company offices
      > in Pleasanton, California as well as last month's bombing of
      > Emeryville,
      > California biotech firm Chiron. Both companies are owned by
      > Yamanouchi Consumer
      > Inc., which does business with Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New
      > Jersey research
      > firm that experiments on animals. The Revolutionary Cells' motive
      > is to drive
      > Huntingdon Life Sciences out of business by threatening the lives
      > of its
      > customers' employees and their families, referred to as "targets"
      > by the group's
      > e-mail. The message included a specific threat to double the size
      > of the bombs
      > used in each future attack. No one was hurt in either bombing.
      > The FBI is
      > investigating.
      > I am not writing now to argue against the use of violent tactics
      > by our
      > movement as I have done in the past. Given that those who use
      > such tactics push
      > our movement further away from those in the cultural mainstream
      > whose hearts and
      > minds we must win to achieve our goals; given that violent tactics
      > smear all
      > law-abiding activists with the wide brush of negative stereotyping
      > ("They're
      > all terrorists!"); and given that terrorism will only increase the
      > time it will
      > take to achieve our goals, thus costing billions or trillions of
      > animals
      > infinitely more suffering, by creating an enormous backlash
      > against our movement's
      > goals; I cannot imagine any situation in which violence could be
      > justified as
      > a worthwhile tactic to further our goal of animal liberation.
      > The issue about which I am writing now takes the question of
      > tactics to the
      > next level: What is the ethical duty of animal rights supporters
      > who have
      > information about the perpetrators of such violent and
      > counterproductive actions
      > done in the name of our movement? Are we to remain silent in the
      > face of
      > terror tactics, which will surely, sooner or later, result in
      > maimings and deaths
      > that will create widows and orphans? Are we to protect those
      > whose tactics
      > will ultimately cost countless more innocent animals their lives
      > and seriously
      > set back our movement's progress? Are some of us, by providing
      > secrecy to those
      > who made themselves terrorists by their choice of terror tactics,
      > ultimately
      > condoning such terror tactics and assuming ethical responsibility
      > for those
      > violent actions?
      > Or are we, by protecting our movement's tiny, violent fringe,
      > helping to
      > defeat dominionism and speciesism by protecting those whom some
      > call heroes for
      > undertaking highly visible and extreme forms of activism that are
      > guaranteed to
      > get media coverage?
      > It is worth remembering that, during the 1960's Vietnam War, the
      > FBI's
      > Project Cointelpro used people on the FBI payroll to literally
      > take-over anti-war
      > groups and steer them to violence in an attempt to discredit the
      > anti-war
      > movement and divide it from the mainstream of Americans. The
      > government understood
      > that turning a movement for change to violence could be the
      > quickest way to
      > destroy the movement. I am not accusing those who have committed
      > these bombings
      > of being government agents but, after Cointelpro, we would be most
      > unwise to
      > forget that those who will benefit most from violence are those
      > who most want
      > to stop us from gaining our goals. Thus, those who use terror
      > tactics must
      > understand that they will find no support, comfort, respect, or
      > friendship of
      > any kind from those of us who are truly committed to animal
      > liberation, not
      > terrorism.
      > In my opinion, when so-called "activists" attempt to gain
      > supposedly
      > compassionate goals through the use of terror tactics, they choose
      > to leave not only
      > the community of animal activists but the community of civilized
      > human beings
      > as well. Those who use extortion enforced by violence to achieve
      > their goals,
      > no matter how humane those goals, are racketeers, pure and simple.
      > Ethically,
      > can those who, by their silence, implicitly condone the violence
      > and
      > extortion used by these extremists be any less culpable than those
      > who actually
      > perform the acts of terror?
      > I don't see how.
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HLSsucks/
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StopNightmareDogIndustries
      > Tell of your passion of the causes you fight for!
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stateyourcause/
      > "Hunting ... the least honorable form of war on the weak".
      > - Paul Richard
      > Don't just question animal abuse. Interrogate it, impugn it, tear
      > it down,
      > dismember it, bury it, and when the mood strikes you, dance on its
      > grave!
      > "My doctrine is this: that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have
      > the power
      > to stop, and we do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the
      > guilt."
      > - Anna Sewell, (English Novelist)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.