Animal rights wackos = terrorists?

[arcticpenguin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=857&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20030827/od_uk_nm/oukoe_crime_minks

SEATTLE (Reuters) - More than 9,000 minks set free from a Washington fur farm by an animal liberation group this week are back in their pens but hundreds more are still roaming the nearby woods, police say.
...
Workers found holes cut in fences surrounding the farm and all of the cages opened, though thousands of the animals never ventured from their pens.

Local news outlets received e-mails from the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which has struck fur farms across the U.S. Northwest, claiming to have released the minks.

Since ALF is considered a domestic terrorist group by law enforcement agencies, the FBI has been called in to help investigate, Wasler said.

Critics say releasing domesticated minks is more inhumane than killing them for fur, arguing that the caged animals are ill-equipped to survive in the wild, even in the rich woodlands of western Washington.
Are extremist animal rights wackos actually terrorists? Or are anti-terrorism laws being used improperly?

I think the people who did this are wackos and should be locked up. My question is whether anti-terrorism laws are appropriate in this situation.

[Nyarlathotep]

I would say they are terrorists. A LOT milder than the ones who go around slamming jets into skyscrapers perhaps, but they are still destroying peoples property with a political aim. They may not be as bad as terrorists who kill people (and thus shouldn't be punished as harshly) but to my mind, it is still terrorism.

Also, these guys may have only set free a bunch of minks, but other environmental wackos have spiked trees and set fire to buildings under construction, both of these activities can get people hurt or killed, those groups are DEFINATELY terrorists as far as I am concerned.

[jj]

Some of these animial rightists have done their best to release medical test animals that were INFECTED with serious epidemicological diseases.

At least some of them qualify, I think.

Mind you, while I find Greenpeace a bit much, I don't mean Greenpeace, but some of the people from ALF have espoused as their goal as "restoring the balance by reducing the human race".

They strike me as every bit as virulent as islamic fundamentalists who welcome global thermo-nuclear war.

[Chris Haynes]

Then there were the idiots who started this fire... they seemed to confuse "genetically engineered" with old fashioned tree breeding:
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/sept01/merrill.html

Actually I would like to see some of these guys in a room full of hungry minks... lets see how friendly they are to the cousin of the weasel.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Terrorists? Absolutely - and they should be dealt with as terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1346355.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1213749.stm

Personally I think anyone funding these groups should be treated in exactly the same way as someone funding groups like Al-qaeda or the IRA.

[Moccomouse]

Hmmm....yes, perhaps they are terrorists, but animal rights activists? Only selectively, in my view. You'll notice these same people aren't going around 'liberating' cattle or chickens, do you? Hell, I'll bet a lot of them were wearing leather shoes when they "liberated" the little minkies.

This is something that pisses me off about other liberals, and particularly animal rights activists: They only rescue the cute and fuzzy ones.

Now, there are a lot of things worse than letting a bunch of minks go free, and I am all for animal rights, but only if it can be sucessfully and practically implemented to ALL animals. In the meantime, I'll stick to my leather shoes and my hamburgers, thankyouverymuch.

[Wolverine]

I stumbled across this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm) while doing some further reading on the subject, which cites words written by ALF's founder Ronnie Lee:

Animal liberation is a fierce struggle that demands total commitment. There will be injuries and possibly deaths on both sides. That is sad but certain.

:eek:

Call me crazy, but that reeks of terrorism.

[jj]

Originally posted by Wolverine
I stumbled across this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm) while doing some further reading on the subject, which cites words written by ALF's founder Ronnie Lee:



:eek:

Call me crazy, but that reeks of terrorism.

They are nuts in my opinion. Sending letter bombs, poisoned razor blades and setting bombs seems to me to qualify as a full-fledged terrorist op to me.

[jj]

Originally posted by Moccomouse
This is something that pisses me off about other liberals, and particularly animal rights activists: They only rescue the cute and fuzzy ones.


Mink are neither cute nor pleasant. They are just little mustileds, and they have an attitude to fit.

But how are liberals involved here? ALF is not, as the articles make clear, a "liberal" org.

[fishbob]

More than 9,000 minks set free from a Washington fur farm by an animal liberation group this week are back in their pens but hundreds more are still roaming the nearby woods, police say. 9,000 voracious little predators set loose on the local eco-system. Just because the damage is hard to quantify, nothing burst into flame, no tragic construction deaths, does not mean there was no damage.

And how exactly did this further their cause? No good answer? Sounds like junior terrorists to me.

[Kodiak]

The footsoldiers of the ELF, ALF, and Earth First! systematically use terror as a means of coercion and intimidation.

They are therefore textbook terrorists.

[Tony]

I’m willing to say this group is a terrorist group, but should releasing 9000 minks be considered a terrorist act? civil disobedience/protest? or criminal? Where do you draw the line?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony
I’m willing to say this group is a terrorist group, but should releasing 9000 minks be considered a terrorist act? civil disobedience/protest? or criminal? Where do you draw the line?

One place.

In court. Let the rule of law decide.

[arcticpenguin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=2&u=/nm/20030922/od_nm/finland_mink_release_dc

More idiots releasing mink. This time it's in Finland.


"For the farmer, this is an utter disaster. There will also be an impact on the local wildlife as the minks are predators who will try and find food. Some of the minks will face a painful death. This is a terrorist act, nothing else."

[Tricky]

Though this specific case is iffy because of the potential for disease or ecological damage caused by the minks, I have to say that destroying property is not terrorism, but vandalism. If destroying property were terrorism, then then a number of our revolutionary heroes were terrorists. (Remember the Boston Tea Party?)

[nightwind]

Nope, definitely should not be considered terrorist. I mean putting the FBI, on someone who set a bunch of mink loose?

Common, this is a job for the local police or the sheriff's office, not the FBI. Sheesh. I beleive the FBI has a lot more to do in fighting legitimate terrorism, instead of chasing a bunch of mink around. :rolleyes:

[bignickel]

How the heck are these people terrorists?

When did the term 'terrorist' change so much that it now can be applied to just about anyone the U.S. government doesn't like?

I always thought the definition of 'terrorist' was pretty self-explanatory: one who uses terror to accomplish or advance political goals.

Now, these people may be nutters... but seriously: who EXACTLY are they trying to terrorize in these examples?

These are not terrorists, and by calling them that, it blurs the actual definition of the word into something it never way. And it allows those in charge to use the same laws targeting hijackers who kill thousands against those who would never think of killing anybody (or any animal, as the case were).

What's next: crack dealers being charged with 'facilitating and funding terrorist activities'?

Let me know when SUV owners get charged with the same.

[Upchurch]

Wait a minute. The root word of "terrorism" is "terror" Releasing animals may be illegal, it may be annoying, but how are they using terror as a tool to further their cause? Now if these guys are mailing letter bombs, fine, they are terrorists, but non-violently sabotaging a process is not terrorism.

edited to add: Dang it. Bignickle was faster on the trigger than I was. However, you can trust the St. Louisians to call a reality check. :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tricky
Though this specific case is iffy because of the potential for disease or ecological damage caused by the minks, I have to say that destroying property is not terrorism, but vandalism. If destroying property were terrorism, then then a number of our revolutionary heroes were terrorists. (Remember the Boston Tea Party?)

So 9/11 was vandalism not terrorism?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


So 9/11 was vandalism not terrorism?
Had only property been destroyed, that would be the case.

[bignickel]

St. Louis is in the 'Show Me' state...
:)

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wait a minute. The root word of "terrorism" is "terror" Releasing animals may be illegal, it may be annoying, but how are they using terror as a tool to further their cause? Now if these guys are mailing letter bombs, fine, they are terrorists, but non-violently sabotaging a process is not terrorism.

i think the key distinction is when it's done for ideological or political reasons.

i think this is a clear cut case of terrorism. they are committing unlawful acts to further their ideology and by their own admission if people get hurt along the way so be it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

Had only property been destroyed, that would be the case. I have to disagree with you on this on, Tricky. Actions that physically and violently distroys places where humans could have been would be terrorism because it threatens those who might have been there any other time. Painting one's name on the side of a building is vandalism.

(Okay, both are vandalism, but the former is also terrorism)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


i think the key distinction is when it's done for ideological or political reasons.I have to disagree. The key distinction is when it's done to scare someone. If we went by your definition, an illegal sit-in in the middle of the street would be terrorism because it is ideologically or politically motivated.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I have to disagree with you on this on, Tricky. Actions that physically and violently distroys places where humans could have been would be terrorism because it threatens those who might have been there any other time. Painting one's name on the side of a building is vandalism.

(Okay, both are vandalism, but the former is also terrorism)
Dang it, I knew someone would catch me on that one. I almost corrected it myself. What I should have said is that if none of their actions would have been likely to injure humans, then it would have been vandalism.

But of course, Jon was just being a contrarian.:p
-----
edited to say:
Okay, before I get nailed again. You also cannot threaten humans. Burning a cross on someone's lawn is terrorism, even if you do nothing to physically harm them.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think the question of whether an act against property is terrorism or vandalism really is mostly a matter of degree and intent. If somoene breaks a window in a building, that's vandalism. A few years ago some right-wing militia types blew up a couple of unoccupied forest service builings around here. No one was hurt but to my mind it was clearly terrorism. Releasing a bunch of minks into the wild straddles the line but I thinkit strays into the terrorism catregory.

Just my two cents.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


i think the key distinction is when it's done for ideological or political reasons.

i think this is a clear cut case of terrorism. they are committing unlawful acts to further their ideology and by their own admission if people get hurt along the way so be it.

A year ago or so here in St. Louis, a large group of black civic leaders held a 'sit-down' on Highway 70, near Lambert Airport, to protest the lack of construction contracts going to minority-owned businesses. (Shanek can cover that in another thread if he wants, thank you). The leaders and a large group of people sat down on the highway, and didn't budge, thus blocking all traffic going in a particular direction.

Now, what they did was unlawful.
What they did, they did for ideological and political reasons.
Furthermore, an ambulance trying to take someone to the hospital could have been delayed precious minutes, thus resulting in death.

Under your definition, those participating in the 'sit-down' are terrorists.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by bignickel


A year ago or so here in St. Louis, a large group of black civic leaders held a 'sit-down' on Highway 70, near Lambert Airport, to protest the lack of construction contracts going to minority-owned businesses. (Shanek can cover that in another thread if he wants, thank you). The leaders and a large group of people sat down on the highway, and didn't budge, thus blocking all traffic going in a particular direction.

Now, what they did was unlawful.
What they did, they did for ideological and political reasons.
Furthermore, an ambulance trying to take someone to the hospital could have been delayed precious minutes, thus resulting in death.

Under your definition, those participating in the 'sit-down' are terrorists.

let me qualify my remarks further;)

add intimidation, force and/or violence to the equation. i don't think a sit in is terrorism. i still think this instance (the mink situation) is.

as is (in my opinion, and the law's) say, burning down a parking lot full of Hummer SUVs in the name of some environmental cause.

[LW]

Originally posted by fishbob

And how exactly did this further their cause? No good answer?

Their answer is that if they cause enough economical damage to the fur farms, then they can't continue their operation and then no-one will kill beautiful critters anymore and the world will became a nice and shiny place.

The first such strike in Finland (in 1995) happened shortly after most water-fowl eggs had hatched. Nobody knows how many nestfuls of hatchlings got devoured.

[LTC8K6]

They are using fear for a political goal, imo.

Fear of selling SUV's, lest we burn them. Fear of building a house, lest we burn it. Fear of wearing animal products, lest we attack you. Fear of cutting timber, lest you hit one of our spikes. Fear of genetic science, lest we destroy your lab, etc., etc.

Fear of financing or sponsoring items related to some of the above.

Fear of insuring the folks and property involved with the above.

Their goal is to frighten me into behaving their way, and frighten the government into doing what they want done.

The very definition of terrorism, to me.

Lack of success does not mitigate anything they do, imo.

It's backfiring on them anyway, as far as I can see.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh

add intimidation, force and/or violence to the equation. i don't think a sit in is terrorism. i still think this instance (the mink situation) is.Was there indimidation, force, and/or violence in this situation? As I read it, none of the people who worked at the fur farm even saw the activists, much less were threatened by them. Nor was there anything left that indicated that the workers of the fur farm would be in any physical danger in the future.
as is (in my opinion, and the law's) say, burning down a parking lot full of Hummer SUVs in the name of some environmental cause. That's different because that is threatening to the people who work and shop there.

[Peach Jr.]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The footsoldiers of the ELF, ALF, and Earth First! systematically use terror as a means of coercion and intimidation.

They are therefore textbook terrorists.

I seem to recall that both the ELF and Earth First! have described themselves as being terrorists.

I have no idea about how the ALF see themselves.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Was there indimidation, force, and/or violence in this situation? As I read it, none of the people who worked at the fur farm even saw the activists, much less were threatened by them. Nor was there anything left that indicated that the workers of the fur farm would be in any physical danger in the future.

i think it's a possibility upchurch, that there was in this instance. when someone illegally enters your business and causes major damage and you become aware that their leader has a cavalier attitude towards people getting injured during the course of their mission i would think the owner of that business (and the employees)certainly felt some intimidation (at least after the fact). i'm sure the owner of the mink farm or SUV dealership(whether an individual or a corporation) would question whether or not to start over or should he give up or change his business model. i definitely think there's intimidation there.

[Upchurch]

Awful lot of extrapolation and hypothesising there, Harry. Again, none of those situations are mentioned by the article.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Awful lot of extrapolation and hypothesising there, Harry. Again, none of those situations are mentioned by the article.

i just figured how i would react in that situation, if i was that business owner.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh

i just figured how i would react in that situation, if i was that business owner. If I were the business owner, I would be royally hacked of and ready to prosecute the b*stards to the fullest extent of the law.

But these guys did it in the middle of the night when they knew no one was going to be there. They did not destroy the entire operation, or set booby traps, or plant bombs. They did not leave any threatening notes saying "Next time we'll set YOU (or your family/workers/pet) 'free'."

I think the point is that the word "terrorism" is thrown around a lot nowadays and used as an excuse to abuse the Patriot Act. It's very similar to the way "communism" was used in the 50's and 60's. If it's overused as a label for actions a group of people don't agree with, it loses it's ability to acurately identify those acts that should legitimately be labeled "terrorism".

[Pyrian]

There's probably an ALF member reading this thinking "what the heck do we have to do to gain the status of terrorists!?!?" Given that they declare themselves as terrorists, I really don't have a problem with so labeling them.

Anyway, Dictionary.com defines terrorism as:The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.Okay, their actions are unlawful and threatened. Check one. Use of force, check two. People OR property, check three. Intent of coercing society, check four. Ideological and political reasons, check five.

I don't see any argument that ALF isn't a terrorist organization.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Pyrian
There's probably an ALF member reading this thinking "what the heck do we have to do to gain the status of terrorists!?!?" Given that they declare themselves as terrorists, I really don't have a problem with so labeling them.

Taken any polls to see how many of them consider themselves in that light, have you?

A few 'psychics' out there believe they have magical powers: should we believe them too?


Anyway, Dictionary.com defines terrorism as:The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Oh, brilliant. So now the definition has been blurred so much is showing up this way in dictionaries.

The threatened use of force by an organized group against people with the purpose of coercing governments, for political reasons.

Now, where have I heard that before... Oh yeah: OUR OWN FREAKING ARMY, threatening to invade Iraq! The United States, a terrorist nation, who'd a thunk it?


I don't see any argument that ALF isn't a terrorist organization.

Since we're not making the claim that they ARE a terrorist network, and you are, the burden of proof is on you to make the case that they're terrorists, not the other way around.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Pyrian
Given that they declare themselves as terrorists, I really don't have a problem with so labeling them.I have to agree with bignickel. I see no evidence that they are doing any such thing on their website (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/). Can you back this claim?

[BillyTK]

Hell, if you think ALF are scary (hold on, wasn't that a daft muppet-led comedy show? or am I thinking of Farscape ;) ) then wait till you get a load of... The Ramblers Association (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/):
unlawful actions (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/Kinder26Apr02.html) and use/threat of force (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/campaigns/footpaths.html) or violence: check;
against people or property (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/fundraising/wayahead.html): check;
intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/campaigns/problem.html): check;
often for ideological or political reasons (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/ramblers/aboutus.html): check.

I don't see any evidence that the RA isn't a terrorist organisation...

[Upchurch]

I stand corrected (http://www.theonion.com/3936/infograph.html).

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I stand corrected (http://www.theonion.com/3936/infograph.html).

"Bulldozed inefficient recycling plant"

Gasp! Someone could have been hurt!

"Bombed Rainbow Bridge, then glued it back together after realizing it wasn't the bad, man-made kind of bridge."

LOL!

[Dragon]

There's no doubt that the more extreme members of the animal rights movement can properly be called terrorists. They have been treated as such in the UK for years.

Look up "Animal Rights National Index" or "ARNI" (which is, in effect, part of Special Branch).

[gnome]

I can't speak about ALF or ELF, but I believe that Kodiak may be mistaken to classify Earth First! as a terrorist group.

I attended an event organized by a local Earth First! group in Tampa featuring Julia "Butterfly" Hill, and found that there are a lot of misconceptions about what they do.

For example, they specifically discourage the spiking of trees--additionally their spokespeople identified them as dedicated to non-violent activism. They don't put spikes in trees--they put people in them (something Julia was famous for).

On the other hand, that is just the local group. Nationally, they are far from clear on this issue:

http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/efj/primer/Monkeywrench.html

But even then they speak against violent actions. They target inanimate objects and pocketbooks at their worst, and their more responsible groups (in my opinion) stick with civil disobedience. I think this can be safely distanced from terrorism.

[HarryKeogh]

from what i've read ELF spun off from earthfirst! because earthfirst! abandoned practices of destroying property, etc.

[LW]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

More idiots releasing mink. This time it's in Finland.


Mind you, they apparently were really idiots. It just came up to news that apparently one of them had bragged about the coming strike in a SMS to a TV SMS chat-show . Apparently without realising that the phone numbers get stored.

Those chat-shows are on whenever there are no other programming on a commercial channel. You send a SMS there, and it will show on the screen for perhaps a minute or so, and you pay about 0.8 euros per message. A passtime activity for people who don't have to pay their own phone bills .

[Wudang]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Hell, if you think ALF are scary (hold on, wasn't that a daft muppet-led comedy show? or am I thinking of Farscape ;) ) then wait till you get a load of... The Ramblers Association (http://www.ramblers.org.uk/):
....snip....
I don't see any evidence that the RA isn't a terrorist organisation... Yeah, but be fair. You have to differentiate between the political wing of the RA and the provisionals! :D

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by bignickel
[B]

The threatened use of force by an organized group against people with the purpose of coercing governments, for political reasons.

Now, where have I heard that before... Oh yeah: OUR OWN FREAKING ARMY, threatening to invade Iraq! The United States, a terrorist nation, who'd a thunk it?

My reading of the definition in the dictionary is that the "unlawful" applies to both "use" and "threatened use". If that is correct, then the definition would only be met if the invasion of Iraq were unlawful. Which is of course a whole other question!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Wudang
Yeah, but be fair. You have to differentiate between the political wing of the RA and the provisionals! :D
:roll:
The provos are in the process of being disarmed but it's radical splinter group the Real RA you've got to be worried about ;)

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

My reading of the definition in the dictionary is that the "unlawful" applies to both "use" and "threatened use". If that is correct, then the definition would only be met if the invasion of Iraq were unlawful. Which is of course a whole other question!

Read the definition again: "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence..."

By the by - I'm pretty sure the former government of Iraq thought the invasion was unlawful. :) IE unlawful and lawful is in the eye of the beholder. What was that...? "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

I must ask: most have known what the definition of a terrorist is for the last few decades: one who spreads terror for political/ideological reasons.

That definition worked fine. It was useful. It described a new kind of soldier in a new kind of warfare.

So why are people trying to change it into a word that we already have a word for: saboteur?

Maybe the French language has gone out of fashion over the last year...

It's deja vu all over again!

[gnome]

Originally posted by bignickel

So why are people trying to change it into a word that we already have a word for: saboteur?

Maybe the French language has gone out of fashion over the last year...

It's deja vu all over again!

Well, I can think of two good reasons...

1. Why should we name something using the language of those weenies that wouldn't see things our way in the UN? Screw France, we're using our own word.

2. By broadening the definition we can lump things like saboteurs and maybe eventually protestors into the same term with the guys that destroyed the world trade center, that way we can do what we want with them, and anyone that stands up for their constitutional rights will get shouted down by grieving Americans.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by bignickel

By the by - I'm pretty sure the former government of Iraq thought the invasion was unlawful. :) IE unlawful and lawful is in the eye of the beholder.

The invasion was approved by a majority vote by the US senate, which makes it clearly lawful by US law, not just in the eye of the beholder.

That doesn't prove it was the right thing to do, nor is that changed by several senators now saying they were wrong (particularly those running for president).

As for "international law", that only means we didn't have the permission of Kaddafy, Mugabe, Castro, and Chiraq. :p

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Are extremist animal rights wackos actually terrorists?

Yes.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Or are anti-terrorism laws being used improperly?


No.

[bignickel]

Uh, yeah, but you're kinda missing the point. One side decides that an attack is legal, so their group is an 'army'.

Another side considers the attack illegal, so the group are 'terrorists'.

Again, tho, the definition is 'unlawful force OR threatened force'. So in that regard, any threatened force (whether anybody thinks it legal or illegal) meets the definition of terrorist, as long as the other condidtions of the definition are satisfied.

Again I ask: terrorism has traditionally meant the activity of spreading terror for political/ideological purposes.

We have a word for enviro-wackos: saboteurs.

Again: why are people wanting to change the definition of terrorism into something we already have a word for? Those of you who do: why do you want to? What's your reasoning? Why the importance of doing so?

Ah, CSI is coming on! Gotta go!

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by bignickel
Again I ask: terrorism has traditionally meant the activity of spreading terror for political/ideological purposes.

We have a word for enviro-wackos: saboteurs.

Ah, CSI is coming on! Gotta go!

but doesnt saboteur traditionally mean someone working from the inside to do harm?

and yes CSI is a great show.

[swellman]

Does this (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/01/e_mail_ties_calif_bombings_to_militant_group/) qualify as terrorism?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


but doesnt saboteur traditionally mean someone working from the inside to do harm?
Indeedy; from the word "sabot", which was a traditional form of french footwear which was used to damage machinery, and it is from this activity that the current meaning derives from.

Originally posted by swellman
Does this (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/01/e_mail_ties_calif_bombings_to_militant_group/) qualify as terrorism?
Do you feel terrorised?

In fact, does anyone feel terrorised by a group which threatens, "No more will all of the killing be done by the oppressors, now the oppressed will strike back," (which out for AK47-bearing those minks and beagles, folks!) and promises, "We will now be doubling the size of every device we make." Now, if their first device was 10lb, how long before they are building bombs which are going to be pretty difficult to conceal, if not impossible to move?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK
...and promises, "We will now be doubling the size of every device we make." Now, if their first device was 10lb, how long before they are building bombs which are going to be pretty difficult to conceal, if not impossible to move?

Or what if by "size" they meant "strength"?

Maybe the next device will be half the size, but double the power...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Or what if by "size" they meant "strength"?

Maybe the next device will be half the size, but double the power...

But that would require moving from DIY stuff to proprietary stuff? And it would also spoil my maths quiz...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK


But that would require moving from DIY stuff to proprietary stuff?

Not in today's world. Today's terrorists have too many easy NBC options, and lets not forget the Oklahoma City federal building.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Not in today's world. Today's terrorists have too many easy NBC options,
Hold on, we're talking about a bunch of wackos who are building bombs in their garden shed; labelling someone a terrorist doesn't give them automatic access to WMDs-R-Us inc.
and lets not forget the Oklahoma City federal building.
Good point.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Hold on, we're talking about a bunch of wackos who are building bombs in their garden shed; labelling someone a terrorist doesn't give them automatic access to WMDs-R-Us inc.

Sorry. I was too vague.

I'm talking smallpox and anthrax, not dirty bombs or nerve gas.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry. I was too vague.

I'm talking smallpox and anthrax, not dirty bombs or nerve gas.

A couple of years ago I stumbled across a Salon article which pointed out that at that time in the US, whilst obtaining anthrax without the appropriate licenses was illegal, simply possessing the stuff wasn't. Boy, but I wish i could find it again.

Anyway... smallpox and anthrax. A possibility admittedly, but unlikely imo for these guys.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK


A couple of years ago I stumbled across a Salon article which pointed out that at that time in the US, whilst obtaining anthrax without the appropriate licenses was illegal, simply possessing the stuff wasn't. Boy, but I wish i could find it again.

Anyway... smallpox and anthrax. A possibility admittedly, but unlikely imo for these guys.

Agreed, but with enough fanaticism and the proper amount of funding...Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" doesn't seem so unrealistic.