The FBI's WofMD Program Has a New Target: Animal Rights Activists
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
Veganism is probably too far for the broad population. Ovo-lacto vegetarianism, where you're purchasing eggs and dairy from a specific farm (or reputable brand), is more accessible and close in terms of ethical and environmental impact.
Cheaper doesn’t mean better. And perfect is the enemy of the good. We are generations away from ovo-lacto vegetarian dominance, let alone veganism. If I were tasked with defeating vegetarianism, I’d push a vegan or nothing mantra.
What’s “that”? What do you mean by “work”?
If you mean can we sell 8 billion people on ovo-lacto vegetarianism, I don’t know. What I know is it’s easier than selling even one billion on veganism.
If you mean can we literally maintain the supply chains the answer is obviously yes. We already produce enough food for everyone in a world where 6+ billion eat meat.
What does this even mean anyway? Current system works because of being able to buy from multiple sources through the global supply chains and commoditizing food. Specific farms won't work for 8 billion people.
Man that hardly seems believable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relatio...
If it's so dangerous because of viruses and whatnot, surely that's on the farmers?
The only connection to WMD charges is that it was mentioned in the memo as an example of "minor criminal activity".
The article seems to be deliberately misleading.
Irrespective of official designation or intent, if you’re inflicting political violence on unarmed civilians, you’re a terrorist. If not, you’re something else.
Trespassing is what they are doing if they come in and take pictures when they are supposed to be there on private property. Can you explain what you mean here?
The grenades were « smelly ones », not the one to kill. Also that Japanese sailor that accuse Paul, actually did harm himself by sending a projectile in the wind opposite direction, therefore the projectile came back to him. There à public footage showing it. The court didn’t accept to see it yet, because it would Free Paul from charges. This is a political case.
There's really no difference between the two, except perspective. If most of society greatly disapproves of their actions, then they're a "terrorist". If they're successful with their campaign, and most people (maybe in the future) approve of their actions, they're a "freedom fighter".
This is as tropey as it is untrue.
Post WWII, successful revolutionaries rarely terrorised civilians. (Even the Taliban in its fight to retake Afghanistan largely constrained itself to military targets.)
Before WWII, certainly the Napoleonic Wars, total war was the norm—the line between enemy armies, terrorists, criminal gangs and revolutionaries didn’t exist on a practical level because the concept of war crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity didn’t exist. Raping and pillaging began to be frowned upon in that broad interwar period, which encapsulates the Great War, but that varied significantly from place to place. (In antiquity. exterminating the enemy was almost best practice.)
So no. If you’re using violence as a political tool against non-military targets, you’re not a freedom fighter. You’re a terrorist. The only grey areas are collateral damage and political executions, e.g. purging an old regime. (Even then, it’s a grey line between freedom fighter and war criminal, or revolutionary and brutal autocrat. Not terrorist.)
Are you kidding? If you are a civilian and the Taliban think you were affiliated with or benefiting from the old regime, you were and are a target.
The same applies to any revolutionary or independence movement anywhere in the world. If you are an ordinary poor farmer or a laborer, they will probably leave you alone (might requisition your home or your crops though). But if you are a professor, a policeman, an official, a business owner, a journalist, writer, or artist, or simply a prominent person in some way (in terms of your education, wealth, influence, loudly voiced opinions, religion, ethnic origin, etc.) - watch out, because there is a good chance they'll want to hang you.
Governments brutalising their own citizens aren’t terorrists.
> there is a good chance they'll want to hang you
Fair enough, I suppose I should qualify political violence against non-military targets with indiscriminate. There is a difference between murderous revolutionary regimes and terrorism. (One key element, however, being the word “regime.” Killing professors after taking power isn’t terrorism. Killing professors before seizing control is.)