U.S.D.A. announces P.E.T.A. is a Terrorist Threat

Joel

Joel

The U.S.D.A. has announced that the People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals (P.E.T.A.) has now met all of the mandated requirements to be declaired a terrorist organization.

Some members of P.E.T.A. are known for such acts such as protestesting outside of animal testing centers, and throwing red paint on people that have worn animal furs. But does this really make them on the same level as other known terrorist organizations such as Al-Quida?

Discuss......(or read more about it)
 
PETA is also probably involved in "overseas contingency operations" with noted eco-terrorists Greenpeace.

The cynic in me wants me to believe this only happened because the Obama Administration needs more white terrorists for their "nothing to see here" routine regarding Islamic terrorism.

I can see it now:

MSNBC: "Does the Obama Administration have a response to the USDA's announcement that PETA is a terrorist organization?"

Robert Gibbs: "Terrorism comes in all stripes, races, creeds, colors, and religions. And by terrorism I mean overseas contingency operations. And by religions I in no way mean to allude to Islam, which is a peaceful and loving religion."
 
While the word terrorist does have a certain stigma, criminal actions and harassment because of love for pets should never be condoned, so I am in favor of using whatever words anyone wants to help establish that P.E.T.A. is not okay just because "omgggg animals are so important." Yeah, I fucking despise a lot about the vanity of fur wearing, but throwing paint on those people is not the solution, Communism is!
 
I really hate it when people try to act like government corruption begins and ends at the president and his administration.

What the problem here is we need to stop calling everything under the fucking sun a terrorist. PETA just pushes their views onto people in a pretty harsh manner. I'll call them radicals. I will not call them terrorists.
 
PETA = people easting tasty animals

I disagree. Yes, they are "assaulting" people, throwing paint on them, etc...but not exactly terroizing the public.
And theyre animals. yes theyre cute, but they will still be cute, even if we don't pour billions of dollars into this. waste of time and resources
 
If PETA were to just scale down (no throwing paint, perhaps), perhaps to just exposing the sometimes inhumane practices, then I'd be against calling them terrorists. However, by the technical definition, they are (acting with an intent to produce an effect). However, by that definition, 10 * 10 ^ 9 people in this world (or more) are commiting terrorism on a daily basis, so perhaps that definition should be changed.
 
Everyone knows PETA is an acronym for "People Encouraging Terrorist Acts". This is just a formality confirming a long-standing truth.

Yes, I believe they do fit the description of a terrorist organization, but that word always brings to mind the picture of Al-qaeda, which is not a correct classification of PETA. There just needs to be a distinction between "terrorist" and "deadly threat".

My inner cynic also agrees with Deck Knight's post.
 
I'm comfortable with this..

Terrorist is just a buzzword. The more that is done to make it seem like a ridiculous term the better.

Have a nice day.
 
Basically what I think has already been said - PETA aiding the ALF, etc etc.

As far as throwing paint on people's fur coats; although it is a pretty asinine act to ruin somebody else's property with paint, it isn't terrorism, or at least "bye bye building" or "boom 'splodey" terrorism.
 
Terrorism is simply the use of fear as a weapon. The goal of 9/11 wasn't to kill 3000 (or w/e) people. It was to create panic in the remaining ~99.999% of the population. In this sense, PETA's largely the same. They just don't commit acts that we would consider simply inhuman. When you throw paint at someone wearing a fur coat, you're not trying to argue peacefully with them. You're trying to intimidate them.

The use of "threat" in the topic title is funny but wrong, though.
 
capefeather said:
Terrorism is simply the use of fear as a weapon. The goal of 9/11 wasn't to kill 3000 (or w/e) people. It was to create panic in the remaining ~99.999% of the population. In this sense, PETA's largely the same. They just don't commit acts that we would consider simply inhuman. When you throw paint at someone wearing a fur coat, you're not trying to argue peacefully with them. You're trying to intimidate them.

The use of "threat" in the topic title is funny but wrong, though.
Click to expand...


What I should have just said, which I kind of did, is that as compared to blowing up buildings, throwing paint on somebody's fur coat is a light terrorism. Yes, it's still intimidation, but a ruined coat as compared to death?

I don't think that there's too many people that have a deep fear of wearing fur coats after being painted by PETA.
 
Hipmonlee said:
I'm comfortable with this..

Terrorist is just a buzzword. The more that is done to make it seem like a ridiculous term the better.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
It's really hard to disagree with this.

Electrode, I don't think people who wear fur coats really need to put up with douchebags who attack them just for wearing fur coats. PETA is one of the worst "non-profit" organizations in the world.
 
Firestorm said:
It's really hard to disagree with this.

Electrode, I don't think people who wear fur coats really need to put up with douchebags who attack them just for wearing fur coats. PETA is one of the worst "non-profit" organizations in the world.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was trying to say. And I agree that they are not a very good non-profit organization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top