i agree, although a small amount of what they believe makes sence they take things way too far.

Certainly some of their methods would do terrorism proud.. Even if some of their reasons are valid.

Not peta. Peta does not do anything that would be considered terrorism, they expose animal abuse in ways that will gain public attention.

Yes they are. PETA has a very porr record of treating animals correctly.

I wouldn't go that far, but they ARE puffed up with self-importance and lack a fundamental grasp of the principle of cause-and-effect...

IMO that's an overly harsh description of them. I think that term is more applicable to the Animal Liberation Front, Earth First, White Aryan Resistance, and Timothy McVeigh.

I think we need to be VERY careful tossing around the word "terrorism" in this day and age, especially when it can get someone arrested, rendered and tortured on the President's say so. Are there *some* activist organizations that engage in terrorist-type violence? Yes, there are. Are Greenpeace and PETA among them? The answers are "NO" and "Maybe" respectively. I don't see how anything Greenpeace has done can be construed as 'terrorism'. To the extent that they have violated trespassing laws in their protests (climbing aboard ships, barging into nuclear reactor control rooms, etc.), they are operating in same civil disobedience tradition as the civil rights protesters who performed 'sit-ins' at lunch counters. Similarly, I was unable to find news reports about anything PETA has done that would constitute terrorism in the sense of using violence (against people) to induce fear. However, some of PETA's actions with respect to animals and some of its monetary contributions to other organizations are morally dubious and might meet legal definitions of terrorism.

They certainly tend to go a little too far.... much like the way a Pro-Life activist walks into a clinic and kills a doctor. That sounds like terrorism to me.

I wouldn't go that far. I worked at PETA for over a year. Although I do not agree with their tactics, that place was filled with good, honest, and dedicated people. I wish the world had more people that are as passionate as these people. Stand up for what you believe in and take pride in your job!

I disagree. I think the American government and multinational corporations are the biggest terrorists of all.

PETA need to be shut down ...now!... greenpeace need to grow some balls ... thats why one of their founders left and is now in the faces of the Japanese whalers not just thinking about doing something

I believe that you have no conception of what the word "terrorist" means. To call Greenpeace terrorists, a la Bin Laden and crew, shows a complete failure to comprehend the English language if you ask me. I think it is also disrespectful to the many thousands of people who have lost their lives to acts of real terrorism. Buy a dictionary!

I do agree Greenpeace act in terrorist ways. I think the primary way PETA is a terrorist group is in its terrorist campaign AGAINST animals. They put hundreds of thousands or millions of animals to sleep each year. They use membership donations to do this. There are many documented cases of animals that they didn't even try to find homes for. A large percentage of these animals is healthy and able to be placed with families. But PETA often gives them less time to find a home than the local pounds they demonize. This is all characteristic of Ingrid Newkirk, the president and founder of PETA, who has personally executed millions of animals in her lifetime. She seems like a woman who believes that life is meaningless and has no intrinsic value, and that life is just suffering that is better off put to and end. PETA gives animal rights a bad name.

Do they cause you terror? Do you fear for your life or your property becaue of what they do? If not, they are not terrorists. They may be bloody nuisances, they may be wrong (or right), but unless they cause somebody terror, they are not terrorists. And, so far as I know, they do not. And to use the word terrorist for people who are only being a nuisance or small scale vandals is to devalue the word and make the real terrorists - murderers and despoilers - look less bad. If you say you want body searches to stop Greenpeace painting slogans, people may well object; you must keep the real target in mind.

Here is what the dictionary says... In my opinion it is disrespectful not to compare them with Osama. Buy a life! Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements. Some special interest extremists -- most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements -- have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes. Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature. In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely organized movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in "direct action" against companies or individuals who utilize animals for research or economic gain. "Direct action" generally occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims' company operations. The ALF activists have engaged in a steadily growing campaign of illegal activity against fur companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories. Estimates of damage and destruction in the United States claimed by the ALF during the past ten years, as compiled by national organizations such as the Fur Commission and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), put the fur industry and medical research losses at more than 45 million dollars. The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence. Disaffected environmentalists, in 1980, formed a radical group called "Earth First!" and engaged in a series of protests and civil disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced "tree spiking" (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992, the ELF was founded in Brighton, England, by Earth First! members who refused to abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream Earth First!. In 1993, the ELF was listed for the first time along with the ALF in a communique declaring solidarity in actions between the two groups. This unity continues today with a crossover of leadership and membership. It is not uncommon for the ALF and the ELF to post joint declarations of responsibility for criminal actions on their web-sites. In 1994, founders of the San Francisco branch of Earth First! published in The Earth First! Journal a recommendation that Earth First! mainstream itself in the United States, leaving criminal acts other than unlawful protests to the ELF. The ELF advocates "monkeywrenching," a euphemism for acts of sabotage and property destruction against industries and other entities perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. "Monkeywrenching" includes tree spiking, arson, sabotage of logging or construction equipment, and other types of property destruction. Speeches given by Jonathan Paul and Craig Rosebraugh at the 1998 National Animal Rights Conference held at the University of Oregon, promoted the unity of both the ELF and the ALF movements. The ELF posted information on the ALF website until it began its own website in January 2001, and is listed in the same underground activist publications as the ALF. The most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson. The ALF/ELF members consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting details about potential targets on the internet. The ALF and the ELF have jointly claimed credit for several raids including a November 1997 attack of the Bureau of Land Management wild horse corrals near Burns, Oregon, where arson destroyed the entire complex resulting in damages in excess of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the June 1998 arson attack of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control Building near Olympia, Washington, in which damages exceeded two million dollars. The ELF claimed sole credit for the October 1998, arson of a Vail, Colorado, ski facility in which four ski lifts, a restaurant, a picnic facility and a utility building were destroyed. Damage exceeded $12 million. On 12/27/1998, the ELF claimed responsibility for the arson at the U.S. Forest Industries Office in Medford, Oregon, where damages exceeded five hundred thousand dollars. Other arsons in Oregon, New York, Washington, Michigan, and Indiana have been claimed by the ELF. Recently, the ELF has also claimed attacks on genetically engineered crops and trees. The ELF claims these attacks have totaled close to $40 million in damages.

The peta prattle seems to have died a natural death. Did i ask that question?

Greenpeace aint really terrorist they just are frowned upon for going to the extreme to get points across...its the only way in this world..

I believe the Pentagon is an international terrorist organisation, as are the FBI, the CIA and the US government.

I absolutely, 100%, hate PETA to my very core, and feel that it is the logical extension of the dark, twisted, miserable soul of its founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk. But saying that, I should explain further. I also don't like Green Peace, but know too little about what it does to care enough to hate them. I want to make clear that I am vegan and strongly in support of animal rights. To me, when a human suffers the same pain that an nonhuman animal does, both pains are equally bad. I also support PETA's goal of ultimate "total liberation" - the complete abolition of the use or ownership of nonhuman animals in anyway, except maybe for seeing-eye dogs (but advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and even artificial eye transplants will probably eliminate the need for them in the next decade or two). I also am unashamed to admit that I don't hold it against PETA that it most likely financially and philosophically supports terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation Front, thus supporting the use of terror, violence, and violation of the law to achieve its goals. Frankly, there is not ONE movement in the history of the human race that has ever succeeded based purely on non-violent protests and resistance. In India, Gandhi wasn't really the cause of liberation - Great Britain was devastated at the end of a world war, and in an age where "national self-determination" was in and "imperialism" was out, it couldn't turn to its allies for support, and so realized that it was incapable of holding on to the huge subcontinent through military force, or beating down the existing violent, terrorist freedom fighters that also existed in India. Violence liberated India. I would argue that organizations like the Black Panthers, and other violent grassroots African American groups, were also far more responsible for the success of the civil rights movement than Martin Luther King's admirable, but ineffective, non-violent resistance movement. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical, but the fact is, if peace and non-violence was convincing to humans, we'd all be saints, and if we were all saints, there would be no need for non-violent resistance movements. My "beefs" (pun intended) with PETA are many, and all motivated by concern for the rights of animals. Firstly, they're deeply hypocritical - they claim to see human life as equally valuable as nonhuman life, or at least comparable, and, as an example, compare the Nazi Holocaust to what happens yearly in factory farms. Now, although on moral grounds I think the comparison is fair, and shouldn't be seen as demeaning the Holocaust but rather elevating the serious evil of factory farming, it was bound to cause a HUGE backlash of anti-animal-rights public opinion. But my main point with this is that they are hypocritical - they KILL almost all the animals they rescue. Check out this site (which is not an animal rights site, but has good anti-PETA info): http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ Since 1998 they've killed over 17,000 of the animals they've "rescued", often almost immediately after "rescuing" them (often illegally, and, since they'll kill them anyway, unnecessarily). Each year, they kill over a thousand, and sometimes over two thousand "rescued" animals, anywhere from 72 - 97% of them. MANY of these animals are fully adoptable and healthy. They are actively AGAINST "no kill shelters", see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Policy_on_euthanasia Their president and founder, Newkirk, has personally killed thousands of animals with her own hands in her lifetime, many when she worked in an animal shelter before founding the organization. She felt it was her moral obligation to make sure she killed them herself, to make sure they were killed painlessly. PETA and Newkirk's stance seems to be that painless killing is morally acceptable. That "rescuing" an animal is consistent morally with ending its life shortly afterwards, even though it could just as easily live, often without veterinary intervention. If I was being tortured in a cage, and someone came to rescue me, I would certainly hope it was just to rescue me from torture and confinement, and not from the "horror" of being alive. And that is the main source of my deep disgust with PETA and Newkirk - their philosophy is one of being against LIFE. Now, Buddhists say that "life is suffering", but they try to do constructive things about that, not "mercy kill" themselves and everyone around them so that that suffering can end. What PETA doesn't get is that suffering is not the ultimate evil - death IS, and suffering only is a useful measure of how likely one IS to die, without intervention. But if you've ever seen or read anything from Newkirk, you'll find she sounds like a miserable person that hates being alive, and assumes that life is fundamentally horrible. PETA spends MILLIONS of dollars each year on cheap, tawdry, offensive ad campaigns that make the animal rights movement look sexist, stupid, gross, intellectually dishonest, racist, and anti-religion. All those millions would be better spent on not killing the animals they "rescue", but making sure they all go to good homes, or receive the appropriate veterinary care, instead of plastering Pamela Anderson with a message against fur on a billboard on Times Square. That brings me to the second, and, I guess, last thing I have against PETA. If I didn't know better, I would say that their REAL goal is to make bloody sure that the WHOLE WORLD knows that the old expression "all publicity is good publicity, even the bad" is completely untrue. To me, they've accomplished that goal, and should stop trying so hard to beat this dead horse (the one they "rescued") and either close shop or stop killing animals and start to actually make animal rights seem like a serious, compassionate movement, instead of a circus. That's my take on PETA. Spread the word that PETA kills animals, by the way. A lot of people don't know.

I totaly agree,they have they right to peacefull process,but have no right to intimerdate or injure people who they disagree with(the head of huntingdon life sciances,uk was nocked out on his own doorstep and could have died from his injuries).They also have no right to steal or release the animals involved,the u.k is now invested with wild mink because of these irisponsible actions,i think these people care more about the rights of animals then the rights and lifes of there fellow human beings.

I think they take thing to the extremes, sometimes to the point of offence and fear, but they don't cause mass terror in my opinion.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0DD103AF93BA35754C0A963958260,i dont know how to turn this in to a link but it's a article in the new yourk times from tuesday 20 may 08,which reports them risking there own lives and those of the shell workers while shell were dismatleing one of there platforms,it also refers to there braking into a nuclear power plant in england.Freeluncher did you read the links common sence provided,if you did whats your opion,do you still beleive PETA and greenpeace are peacefull organisations.

What is sos, shit on a stick?

Definitely yo...

People for the ethical treatment of animals? OK. People with their hearts in the right place, but often their heads can't keep up.

PeTA members make great bear bait.

I've said it before on AB, and I'll say it again here. PETA is not spelled correctly. It sould be PITA, Pain In The Arse.

Terrorist yes but not in the stero typical way of blowing things up just by harrassing people and forcing their ideas on others

Peta Yes. Greenpeace no. Republicans and Rush Limbaugh- yes.

There are domestic terrorists within those organizations. But Greenpeace is an international organization. PETA and The Sierra Club are domestic.

agreed. to an extent. I can't tell you much about green peace. really don't know much about them. but I know peta is not a friend of the native american way of life. maybe more of a "cultural terrorist" group?

My take is that you are a conservative that has fallen victim to the extreme right.

I agree about PETA and Greenpeace being domestic terrorists. I'd also add in ACLU.

Agreed.

They want a better planet for us? What a horrible thought, huh?

I'm not a Republican, and so am proud to say they are not! Someone has to fight for such good causes!

G'day Koldkanuck, Thank you for your question. I wouldn't agree with that. However, I don't agree with much of what they say and much of it is based on misinformation. Regards

I think they get out of hand many times, but I wouldn't go far enough to call them terrorists. I haven't heard about PETA blowing up a whaling boat or Green Peace bombing all the SUVs in a dealer. But I'm not so sure that they aren't capable of having such desires. For now they're just really obnoxious and a bit undereducated about some things.

i believe they are as well. though they're not nearly as dangerous as many other domestic terrorism groups. they usually just damage property while many right wing groups are killing people.