zokah
03-07-2005, 03:35 AM
Is PETA a terrorist organisation?
It has been revealed that The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has made donations to at least 1 organisation listed by the F.B.I. as being terrorists. But at least they aren't guilty of tax evasion becasue they declared the donation to the Animal Liberation Front in their tax return. Then there was the $70,400 gift to convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado, who spent 57 months in federal prison for firebombing a Michigan State University research lab.
If thats not enough perhaps their own words can shed some light on the matter where founder Bruce Friedrich clearly advocates "Of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows...I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take brinks and toss them through windows...Hallelujah to the people that are willing to do it." click here for a vid (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/advertisements_detail.cfm/ad/2)
In Dubyas own words "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." linky (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030826-5.html)
So I guess it's only a matter of time before we see pics of them forming naked pyramids
They are such an ethical organisation that the Beastie Boys are claiming that they photoshopped their signatures onto a letter claiming support for PETA
However recently I've been wondering if maybe they are being funded by the chemical multi-nationals.
How did I reach this possibility?
Recently I heard an interview with PETA founder and president Ingrid Newkirk where she expounded her belief that the world should be Vegan.
In my opinion the only way that the world population now approaching 6.5 billion people could be fed on a strictly vegitarian diet would be by the widespread introduction of Genetically Modified crops. To my limited understanding of GM crop modification it is to allow the plant to survive and produce a yield following the increased use of pesticides like "Roundup." So assuming that you are willing to risk the as yet undiscovered longterm effects of ingesting massive increases of these chemicals possibly the world could feed itself. The chemical companies tell us it is safe just like one of the major players Dow once told women that it was safe and attractive to insert silicon into their breasts and others told the world that asbestos sheeting was perfectly safe for the home handyman to use and cigarettes don't cause cancer. So naturally I believe all their claims that there will be no ill-effects from ingesting GM foods
What does this have to do with PETA you ask?
During the same interview mentioned above Ms Newkirk was asked what PETAs stance was on the treatment of bugs to which her reply was "The jury is still out on that question"
Given their vocal opposition to the mistreatment of any living creature one would assume they would be vehmently opposed to death by agonising poison, but no "The jury is still out on that question"
During the same in depth interview the subject of mulesing of Australian sheep was raised and the PETA president claimed there were viable alternatives to the life saving practice, however she never told the world what they were!
So let's examine these possibilities.
Do nothing to the sheep and let them die in agony when the blowfly larvae starting eating their arseholes when they hatch
I suppose it would be possible to have people walking around folling the sheep to clean their butts ever time the animal had a shit. 6 million sheep each needing a personal arsewipe 24/7 looks like we'd need import a couple of million chinese becasue the Australian population isn't big enough.
How about we put a nappy on the sheep then they'd only need to be changed daily? Nope can't do that cause they would have to be washed in the rivers and PETA would complain because it would be unethical to the fish that live in the river. That only leaves disposables, PETA will be happy with that and so will the chemical manufacturers that produce the plastics for them and hey as an added bonus they can be used as landfill for the gaping holes left by the mining operaton, so what if they take 25,000 years to break down, no animals are being harmed except for bugs and "The jury is still out on that question"
I suppose this is the sort of logic you could expect from an organisation that proudly claims Anna Nicole Smith and Denis "the worm" Rodman as spokespeople............and don't you dare mention the $225 leather NBA basketballs for sale on Rodmans webpage!!!!
Is it only me that finds it strange that PETA hasn't been protesting outside the various Animal Protection Agencies where the barbbaric practice of cutting off a male animals testicles is carried out on a daily basis
It has been revealed that The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has made donations to at least 1 organisation listed by the F.B.I. as being terrorists. But at least they aren't guilty of tax evasion becasue they declared the donation to the Animal Liberation Front in their tax return. Then there was the $70,400 gift to convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado, who spent 57 months in federal prison for firebombing a Michigan State University research lab.
If thats not enough perhaps their own words can shed some light on the matter where founder Bruce Friedrich clearly advocates "Of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows...I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take brinks and toss them through windows...Hallelujah to the people that are willing to do it." click here for a vid (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/advertisements_detail.cfm/ad/2)
In Dubyas own words "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." linky (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030826-5.html)
So I guess it's only a matter of time before we see pics of them forming naked pyramids
They are such an ethical organisation that the Beastie Boys are claiming that they photoshopped their signatures onto a letter claiming support for PETA
However recently I've been wondering if maybe they are being funded by the chemical multi-nationals.
How did I reach this possibility?
Recently I heard an interview with PETA founder and president Ingrid Newkirk where she expounded her belief that the world should be Vegan.
In my opinion the only way that the world population now approaching 6.5 billion people could be fed on a strictly vegitarian diet would be by the widespread introduction of Genetically Modified crops. To my limited understanding of GM crop modification it is to allow the plant to survive and produce a yield following the increased use of pesticides like "Roundup." So assuming that you are willing to risk the as yet undiscovered longterm effects of ingesting massive increases of these chemicals possibly the world could feed itself. The chemical companies tell us it is safe just like one of the major players Dow once told women that it was safe and attractive to insert silicon into their breasts and others told the world that asbestos sheeting was perfectly safe for the home handyman to use and cigarettes don't cause cancer. So naturally I believe all their claims that there will be no ill-effects from ingesting GM foods
What does this have to do with PETA you ask?
During the same interview mentioned above Ms Newkirk was asked what PETAs stance was on the treatment of bugs to which her reply was "The jury is still out on that question"
Given their vocal opposition to the mistreatment of any living creature one would assume they would be vehmently opposed to death by agonising poison, but no "The jury is still out on that question"
During the same in depth interview the subject of mulesing of Australian sheep was raised and the PETA president claimed there were viable alternatives to the life saving practice, however she never told the world what they were!
So let's examine these possibilities.
Do nothing to the sheep and let them die in agony when the blowfly larvae starting eating their arseholes when they hatch
I suppose it would be possible to have people walking around folling the sheep to clean their butts ever time the animal had a shit. 6 million sheep each needing a personal arsewipe 24/7 looks like we'd need import a couple of million chinese becasue the Australian population isn't big enough.
How about we put a nappy on the sheep then they'd only need to be changed daily? Nope can't do that cause they would have to be washed in the rivers and PETA would complain because it would be unethical to the fish that live in the river. That only leaves disposables, PETA will be happy with that and so will the chemical manufacturers that produce the plastics for them and hey as an added bonus they can be used as landfill for the gaping holes left by the mining operaton, so what if they take 25,000 years to break down, no animals are being harmed except for bugs and "The jury is still out on that question"
I suppose this is the sort of logic you could expect from an organisation that proudly claims Anna Nicole Smith and Denis "the worm" Rodman as spokespeople............and don't you dare mention the $225 leather NBA basketballs for sale on Rodmans webpage!!!!
Is it only me that finds it strange that PETA hasn't been protesting outside the various Animal Protection Agencies where the barbbaric practice of cutting off a male animals testicles is carried out on a daily basis