Who is a terrorist?

You don’t need me to fill you in on the details of the murder of George Tiller in Kansas. […]

He’ll be charged with murder, but there’s no mention yet of any sort of terror charges. The FBI and others have been eager to use anti-terror provisions of the PATRIOT Act to go after ALF and ELF activists, some of whom have done nothing more than organize protests or post information to the web. Many of them have destroyed property, but no one has done any killing, or even wounded someone other than themselves.

Alternet quotes the National Abortion Federation for these statistics here:

“Not surprisingly, his killer is strongly suspected to be affiliated with the ‘pro-life’ movement. If that’s the case, it makes Tiller the 10th person in the United States to be murdered by anti-choice terrorists.”

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Since 1977, there have been at least 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery and three kidnappings committed against abortion providers in North America. Tiller himself survived an assassination attempt in 1993.

Compare the anti-abortion movement’s record on violence with the environmental and animal rights movements, and see who you think should more properly be charged with terrorism.

Dynomia: Domestic Terror

8 Comments

  1. Eamon de Valera

    June 3, 2009 at 4:25 am

    ” ALF and ELF activists”

    People who do stuff like this are not activists but terrorists:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Longbridges_Fire.jpg

    Besides I have nothing but disdain for the animal rights movement (and the anti-abortion movement) just look at all the racist crap PETA’s spewed about Santeria and Vodou for example.

    “some of whom have done nothing more than organize protests or post information to the web.”

    Interesting that you didn’t bother to mention any of the bombings or cases of arson, also it’s a stretch to call ‘don’t eat teh meatz’ propaganda ‘information’.

    “Not surprisingly, his killer is strongly suspected to be affiliated with the ‘pro-life’ movement. If that’s the case, it makes Tiller the 10th person in the United States to be murdered by anti-choice terrorists.”

    The pro-choicers seem to be using a very poor guilt by association argument here.

    “Compare the anti-abortion movement’s record on violence with the environmental and animal rights movements, and see who you think should more properly be charged with terrorism.”

    As evidenced by this map (straight from almighty wikipedia) I think it’s safe to call the ELF terrorists:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ELFActions.jpg

    ” Many of them have destroyed property, but no one has done any killing, or even wounded someone other than themselves.”

    You’re missing the point when someone committs bombings and arson (causing up to £500,000 worth of damage) in the name of a cause; they are terrorists. Playing the numbers and comparing terrorist actions is a poor argument; more people were killed in the 9/11 attack than by the provisional IRA, however that doesn’t make the Enniskillen bombing or Bloody Friday somehow the ‘lesser evil’. Besides the ELF and ALF don’t seem any less violent than the anti-abortion terrorists; ‘sides they’re all self righteous morons who think that bombs solve problems. These two ‘people’ have got to be some of the biggest losers I have ever seen:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hornebeagles.jpg

  2. Fran Trutt (according to Wikipedia) “is an American animal rights activist. She was convicted of an attempted murder of the president of a medical company in 1988.” She may have been entrapped. Hers is the closest case I know of to person-on-person violence originating among “animal rights” activists. I have next to no idea what happened with her or what her intentions were. I do not support “animal rights.”

    Violence done in the name of religion generally gets a pass. I document this every single day at my blog. I support the withering away of religion under the twin suns of reason and scorn.

    What I support or don’t support, plus $2.30, will buy you an all-zone bus pass in Portland that is good for a couple hours.

  3. Eamon – you’re the one missing the point. By no means am I endorsing the ALF or the ELF. But can you really equate burning down a ski resort with killing a man in cold blood? If so, then I can’t help you. You’re completely morally bankrupt.

    Trevor – thanks for the info on Fran Trutt.

  4. Bill Whitcomb

    June 3, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    PETA is an interesting organization. Sure they may have obnoxious views, but everyone has the right to obnoxious views, even racist views. PETA, however, lies consistantly about medical data and studies, and prints quotes from doctors about areas wildy out of their specialty. (Want a dentist’s opinion about the validity of brain injury research?) In addition, they don’t admit that PETA only has about half a dozen members. Everyone else who thinks they are getting membership when they send PETA money is just sending PETA money. Off topic though. A terrorist is anyone who thinks their cause justifies discouraging opposition through fear instead of consensus. That is, “My cause is so morally nifty that it justifies coercing you to agree with my views or killing you if you won’t convert.

  5. Eamon de Valera

    June 4, 2009 at 6:09 am

    “Eamon – you’re the one missing the point. By no means am I endorsing the ALF or the ELF. But can you really equate burning down a ski resort with killing a man in cold blood? If so, then I can’t help you. You’re completely morally bankrupt.”

    I just happen to think they’re both acts of terrorism that’s all, as I pointed out I have disdain for animal rights terrorists and anti-abortion terrorists. Also the pro-choicers seem to try to link the mainstream anti-choice movement with anti-abortion violence despite the fact that mainstream anti-abortion activists have opposed the violence. I’ll quote almighty wikipedia in case any doubts me:

    “Following the 1998 bombing of a clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, Feminists for Life offered a reward for the arrest and conviction of those responsible.[36] In 2001, Priests for Life, a group of pro-life Catholics in the United States, put in place a $50,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of fugitives wanted in connection with violence against abortion providers.[37] The American Life League issued a “Pro-life Proclamation Against Violence” in 2006.[38] Joseph Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League has a chapter in his book called “Violence: Why It Won’t Work.” [39] Other pro-life groups to take a stand against violence include Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and Pro-Lifers Against Clinic Violence.”

  6. Eamon de Valera

    June 4, 2009 at 6:31 am

    Here’s an example of just how bigoted PETA is, let’s examine the link (apart from how the words ‘fact’ and ‘PETA’ don’t belong in the same sentence) below shall we?

    http://www.peta.org/MC/factsheet_display.asp?ID=77

    ” Although the right to hold faith in any religion is protected under the First Amendment, whether this includes the right to conduct religious slaughter of animals is unclear and therefore problematic.”

    Santero and Houngans have consistantly won court cases to practice their beliefs, PETA wouldn’t want you to know that of course.

    “These rituals often take place in secluded areas or at secret meeting places, and most of these groups do not have rosters or membership listings, so they are difficult to track.”

    A few words that stand out ‘difficult to track’ in other words PETA would like their followers to spy on Santeros and Hougans because to them the life of a chicken matters more than freedom of religion or privacy.

    “Meanwhile, countless animals are tortured and killed in the name of religion.”

    According these idiots the life of a chicken is more important than freedom of religion.

    “The goat’s blood was mixed with that of a chicken and drunk by all of the participants.”

    An attempt to demonize santeros; I’m no expert on Santeria or Vodou but I wouldn’t be surprised if PETA actually made that up. Also note how they include a ‘human sacrifice’ link.

    “If you discover evidence or have knowledge of any case of animal sacrifice or mutilation, contact the police.”

    Translation: pester the police about law abiding people practicing their religion freely and ask them to harrass people are guilty of nothing but practicing a religion you don’t like.

    “To protect your own animal companions from theft for animal sacrifices, keep them indoors, on leashes, or closely supervised. Black cats are especially vulnerable around Halloween, when people look for them to use in their “festivities.”

    Watch out everybody those savage brown people will kidnap frufru and sacrifice him to satan! In other words they’re encouraging their followers to fear Hispanic and Black people.

    “Unfortunately, ordinances that prohibit the killing or maiming of animals for ritualistic purposes can be ineffective.”

    Translation: “sadly we can’t make it illegal for people to practice their religion freely and do what they like in the privacy of their own homes.” I think this shows the totalitarian viewpoint of animal rights nuts.

    “If all else fails, you can visit or call your local newspapers or television stations and try to interest reporters in the story. A news story might force officials to act or might scare the person causing the abuse into stopping.”

    Here PETA shows their lack of respect for a person’s privacy; they encourage intimidating people with the media to get them to stop practicing a religion they hate; puritanism is back and it wears a ‘fur is murder’ shirt.

  7. Eamon de Valera

    June 4, 2009 at 6:35 am

    ” Sure they may have obnoxious views, but everyone has the right to obnoxious views, even racist views.”

    I fully agree that they have the right to those views, I’m simply pointing out that it’s a bigoted organization, unlike PETA I’m actually tolerant.

  8. There’s a serious distinction between harming property and harming people, and it doesn’t take much to recognize that. And aside from that, the point is that the ELF is treated as a terrorist organization, and similar militant anti-choice groups are not, despite the fact that anti-choice ‘terrorists’ actually fucking kill people.

    Why? It’s all about perceived legitimacy. It’s not that one group is committing acts of terrorism and one is not. It’s that terrorism itself is a meaningless and bullshit term. It is wholly and entirely based on the perceived legitimacy of violent actions by particular political groups, or more to the point, what we are instructed by our corporate masters to perceive as legitimate or illegitimate. Terrorism is the sort of minor violence that smaller groups can orchestrate, no different in purpose and effect and vastly smaller in scale than the sort of violence that larger, ‘legitimate’ groups undertake.

    Consider the Gaza Strip recently. So-called terrorists, understandably seeking some measure of economic and personal freedom against a tyrannical foreign power, launch home-made improvised explosives into neighboring Israel. This is terrorism, we are told. Somehow these acts of violence justify Israel proceeding to bomb the ever-loving shit out of Gaza, killing innocent women and children indiscriminately, shooting at aid workers, literally destroying the infrastructure of an entire people with the stated intent of discouraging the fundamentally political view that the Gaza Strip is being oppressed and that the use of force in liberating Gaza is therefore justified. Somehow, we are expected to believe that this act is not terrorism.

    It takes about twelve brain cells to realize that ‘terrorism’ is totally fucking fake. Terrorism is just politically-motivated violence, and it cannot in any way be separated or distinguished from any other form of politically-motivated violence, whether it is undertaken by a nation or by a small group. That’s all it is. It’s just violence, no more and no less.

    Now, within the context of violent action, there are two types: violence against people, the destruction of life itself, imprisonment and torture, beatings and the threat thereof; and there is violence against property, the destruction of economic means, exclusion from economic opportunity, blowing up abortion clinics and wrecking animal testing labs, etc. These are very different animals, and are of very different moral weight, and should be addressed differently. And in either case, it is patently ridiculous to propose combating politically-minded violence (“terrorism”) when our own (ostensibly legitimate) government perpetrates acts so much worse in both degree and scope than anything any ‘terrorist’ has ever done. It is impossible to stop terrorism in a world where violence is used by those in power for political effect. The War on Terror is a fiction, meant solely to deceive you and get you to side against those who would end violence through guilt by association. It is a means of consolidating power.

    This should be obvious by now. So why parrot the news media? Terrorist this, terrorism that. It’s all a load of horseshit.

Comments are closed.

© 2020 Technoccult

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: