Domestic Eco-Terrorism, PETA, ALF & ELF Essay

Animal Cruelty is a subject that spreads far across the United States and into most civilized cultures. Animal cruelty can either be in the form of intentional abuse, simple neglect, or abandonment of animals.  Whatever forms the abuse takes, however, the animal that is the victim of the abuse is often helpless and may experience extreme suffering. Animal right activist feel if you don’t know how to take care or treat an animal it can be as deadly as physical abuse to care for one.

The truth about PETA, is that they do not want all animals to roam free. They want the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering. They would like people to adopt animals from pounds or animal shelters, rather than buying from pet shops or breeders. They do claim to be the number one animal activist groups out there. Are they who they claim to be? What they don't advertise, is that

Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in

The American Humane Association does not have really any negative ethic issues. They strive on holding their ideas, mission, and their vision of ensuring the welfare of both children and animals. American Humane Associations envisions a

They concentrate on the four major areas where animals are victimized: factory farms, laboratories, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry.

Today, the discussions about the protection of the animal’s rights have received the attention of many people, many countries in the world. A lot of actions have been made by animal right activists to influence the world. Alex Epstein and Yaron Book, both authors of the “The Evil of Animal ‘Right’,” argue animal right activists use too much violence on their action, which is considered going against the law. Then, the authors give a lot of evidence to prove testing animals are extinct, but using animals for testing gives us new vaccines which make our lives better. Without animals for testing, how can scientists find out the vaccine for diseases? Animal right groups are making many effects to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Some of those would be practicing sterile operations, keeping pens clean and freshly bedded, and by properly euthanizing animals before they are made into food. The article specifically states that cows are “hoisted upside down by their hind legs and dismembered while they’re still conscious.” This is untrue because all animals are dead before they are slaughtered because that is proper procedure and is always

Two of the names you don’t know much about, are associated with some of the most extreme criminal acts known to the FBI. ELF and ALF are also known as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. These are eco-terrorist and animal right extremists that make them the most serious domestic terrorism threat is the US today, because of the tactics they use. They engage in bombing, fires, stalking, assaults, vandalism, intimidation, etc. They claim to be non-violent groups, because they cause no harm to anyone.

Though most groups are targeting the "higher-ups" in a business or production, many of the lower level workers are being harmed in their attempts. Putting people in danger to make a statement is not the right way to approach the situation. Legal actions should, and are often taken against these individuals that see it necessary to cause destruction to fix a problem. Because of their violent actions, environmental activists have been legally deemed terrorists. "They have inflicted millions of dollars in damages and have maimed innocent people" ("Ecoterrorism: The Dangerous").

Terrorism, a very prevalent topic in today’s society can be viewed in many different sectors, depending on the actions taken by terrorist organizations. American Terrorism, Environment Style, written by Doug Bandow, predominantly deliberates about the acts/ views of eco-terrorism. With close alliance to the title, the opening statement, “Terrorists are loose in America- eco- terrorists (cite), expresses the emergence of eco- terrorism. Eco-terrorism, according to the Federal Bureau, “is the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people 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” (cite).The attacks

Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are