Animal rights group burns down CEO's house - and steals his mother's ashes

[Rey C.]

What really got me about this story is that these people set the fires at the entrances and exits of the house. Since they stole the ashes of this fellow's mother and sister (is that sick or what?!), who knows if they checked the house to make sure it was empty. But still... sick!

Vandals burned his family's holiday home in Austria after soaking both the entrance and exit of the house with gasoline, he said. Vasella and his family, including children ranging in age from 17 to 25, were not at home at the time of the Aug. 3 attack.

Asked about the desecration of family graves, Vasella said, "It's hurting and a lot of old memories come up of losses I experienced, especially my sister when she died of cancer ... and my father died when I was 13."

The Austrian Interior Ministry has said a group called Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Science has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSN1132769620090811

 

[Will E Worm]

Animal rights terrorists. Putting animals before people.

After this attack they need to be hunted down, hung from the waist so they are still alive, then...:flame:

Burning down someone's home and taking someone's ashes is beyond standing up for your causes. These people are lower than the animals they act like they are protecting.

What a day to post this thread. I'm eating KFC. :yummie:

 

[mrtrebus]

Animal rights terrorists. Putting animals before people.

People ARE animals.
Some more than others! :hatsoff: :tongue:

 

[Will E Worm]

People ARE animals.
Some more than others! :hatsoff: :tongue:

Some are, read 2 Peter 2:12 (KJV)

I'm not a brute beast.

 

[BlueBalls]

I always find it strange that people such as these actually believe performing an act such as this one or let's say killing an abortion doctor for example, is actually going to help their cause. As we have seen time and time again, the use of violence towards a person or their property does nothing to help their cause. The action in fact hurts it.

It turns the story into less about what they believe is wrong, into a story about violent thugs who burn someones house down to prove a point. You would have thought people would have figured that out by now. But I guess they don't care about that, they have performed their little act and I'm sure they're extremely happy with themselves.

Morons!

 

[calpoon]

As we have seen time and time again, the use of violence towards a person or their property does nothing to help their cause. The action in fact hurts it.

Tell that to every national military force in the world. The current theory is that killing as many people who disagree with you as possible and preferably stealing anything they have of value is a great way to further your cause.

 

[CunningStunts]

Wait... I thought all of the violent people were "right wingers"???

 

[calpoon]

What makes you think this group isn't right wing? maybe they hate Obama because he eats socialist meat.

 

[BlueBalls]

Tell that to every national military force in the world. The current theory is that killing as many people who disagree with you as possible and preferably stealing anything they have of value is a great way to further your cause.

Yeah and look how successful that strategy has been. Has it won over the "hearts and minds" of those it was supposedly helping? No. (We all know that was never the reason for going to war, even though it was an excuse, but I'm going to run with it anyway).

By all means; lie, cheat, steal, kill to get what you want. But at the end of the day the people you thought were going to welcome you with open arms are going to hate you because you can't force people to change their minds (except in Jade Goody's case, surprisingly). Unless the US has perfected MKULTRA?

 

[mrtrebus]

Some are, read 2 Peter 2:12 (KJV)

I can't seem to find a Bile-ble around the place at the moment.
:hatsoff::tongue:

 

[calpoon]

You're right. But I guess the philosophy in both cases is that they either naively believe that they will lead by example, or that it no longer matters for them to convince others, just to carry out their own agenda.

That's sort of the gripping question for humanity, I think. At what point, if ever, should we resolve to deem it necessary to commit an action (and I don't just mean violence, I mean anything), even if we know that it won't accomplish our desired consequences? It's not a simple answer.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Seems to me, if you soak BOTH exits in an accelerant, then set fire to them, you don't want any living thing to get in, or OUT. That strikes me as pretty well premeditated.

 

[BlueBalls]

That's sort of the gripping question for humanity, I think. At what point, if ever, should we resolve to deem it necessary to commit an action (and I don't just mean violence, I mean anything), even if we know that it won't accomplish our desired consequences? It's not a simple answer.

No, it's not. No one can reasonably answer that because of course you could say never, it's never necessary to commit such acts. But as history has shown we don't work or think in that way.

 

[habo9]

Unbelievable........the dirty bastards , they should hang them when they get them....

 

[Friday on my mind]

Yeah and look how successful that strategy has been. Has it won over the "hearts and minds" of those it was supposedly helping? No. (We all know that was never the reason for going to war, even though it was an excuse, but I'm going to run with it anyway).

By all means; lie, cheat, steal, kill to get what you want. But at the end of the day the people you thought were going to welcome you with open arms are going to hate you because you can't force people to change their minds (except in Jade Goody's case, surprisingly). Unless the US has perfected MKULTRA?

I agree with you pretty much,no matter how tempting it may be to strike out against what you think is evil, things like this are counter productive to your goal of winning over support for your issue IMO.

I do think property damage is different then physical violence though,but it's still counter productive.

And on whether or not most people see that for the use of militaries as well, unfortunately too many (a majority even) don't see it that way.They really think we can as you say win over people with military action and get the changes they would like to see long term with that.

There was a time maybe that would work.Wasn't pretty but was effective.But you had to beat your opponent down to where they were willing to see the futility of resistance.You just can't do that these days.We the US and others as an example beat the axis (germany ,japan,italy) to the point they were willing to accept they were beaten and had to submit.

The world is just do different now that seems not to be possible.And that may be a good thing.

In the thread on the sniper scotsman I wondered what a scot is doing in afghanistan and got the answer "we need to be there to beat down the taliban and Al Queda".My two thoughts on that is with all the money (the US) spends on the defense budget why do we need help in afghanistan? Second how many years we been there? And people say its not really going very well for us,Obama saying we need more help from nato ect.Damn this is taking longer than a world war lol

How many years we been there and were the great big military superpower, we spend better then 1/2 a trillion a year on it .What a waste of money.

I don't even say this out of such reprehension for war and such,although it is pretty awful stuff.I say the shit just ain't effective no more.You want to win over hearts and minds its gonna take a lot of hard work and understanding between peoples ,just knocking them over the head ain't goona do it and actually pushes things the wrong way.

 

[Rey C.]

The current theory is that killing as many people who disagree with you as possible and preferably stealing anything they have of value is a great way to further your cause.

That's not really anything new. In both Eastern and Western cultures, that's the way it's been (militarily) for thousands of years: "total war". If anything, major, developed powers seem to be less willing to go that route these days. If this was 10 B.C. and Obama was Augustus, we'd just rename Iraq and take all the oil we wanted.

But this isnt a military or even a para-military group. I know that "one man's terrorist is another man's hero" and all of that. But anyone who would purposefully burn down a man's home, maybe kill him and his family inside and desecrate the graves of his family, is just really, really sick, IMO.

 

[shayd]

Extremism at work again

 

[alexpnz]

Just for that shit, im going out to Outback Steakhouse and im gonna order a Porterhouse the size of the plate and eat that motherfucker with a huge smile on my face. Next im gonna come home and hunt that fucking bird that shits on my car EVERY fucking morning AFTER I just washed it and hit that fucker with a baseball bat til its head flys off.
Lastly, im going to the track and bet on a horse and I hope the jockey whips him a 100 fucking times in the stretch as I root him home and THEN im going to stop at McDonalds on the way home and order a Big Mac!!

Fucking PETA wierdos......

 

[ChefChiTown]

Killing animals? Baaaaad (said like a sheep)

Killing people? OK!!!

 

[Member2019]

It's just another outlet ...

It's just another outlet in the excuse for vandalism and violence. The avenue doesn't matter, it's the actions that are everything. Such things don't know favoritism with any creed, political party or other staple. You can find such people in just about any avenue with any cause.

I'll never forget the time one of the animal activists in my high school started picking a fight with a hunter, much to the urging of his friends. The hunter just stood there, let the animal activist yell at him, even push him and do everything else. At one point the animal activist couldn't believe he couldn't entice the hunter into a fight, and even accused him of being a pacifist.

Shortly afterwards, the activist finally went for a punch to the hunter's face. It was at that point the hunter countered and sent him to the floor with a good dodge and swift, powerful thrust, catching the activist off-balance. He just said, "no, you're just no threat and it serves no purpose."

I remember I was with a couple of my fellow football teammates at the time and I just said, "it's funny how hunters and jocks are considered aggressive, yet we seemingly don't try to excuse our violent actions as justified as much as others who don't" or something of the sort.

Again, it's about people using an avenue for their need. The question I always ask is if you have a controlled usage or if it is an issue for society? I'm still amazed how "violent" some people are, yet complain about hunting and contact sports.