SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Domestic Terrorists Strike Again

by Brian Dunning, Jul 23 2009

Some more fine news from the “animal rights” extremists… I put that in quotes because they don’t really give a flying [censored] about animals, they really just hate people. This time they struck in my own back yard, at the University of California, Irvine. In fact, in my dad’s neighborhood.

Note that I’ve chosen not to promote the name of this particular group. Why? Because they can kiss my [censored]. This is an extract from the Orange County Register, by their excellent science editor Gary Robbins:

The animal rights group known as the [not promoted here] has claimed responsibility for vandalism that was done to the property of a UC Irvine scientist on July 10, campus officials say.

[Not promoted here] states  in an email to this blog that, “On  July 10, 2009 3 vehicles and the home of a UC Irvine vivisector were hit by the [not promoted here]. 1 of his cars (the fanciest of the 4 in front) was doused with paint stripper. 2 others had red paint poured all over them.

“More red paint was splattered across his driveway, and “KILLER” was spray painted in huge red letters across his garage door so that all his neighbors could see what a cruel, sick person they live near.”

Sgt. Shaun Devlin of the UCI Police Department confirmed that an act of vandalism occurred and that the department is investigating. Susan Bryant, vice chancellor of research, also confirmed that there was an incident. She added that, “We’re mystified why this person was targeted.”

The professor whose property was attacked has not been identified.

Jeffrey Goodwin, director of UCI’s University Laboratory Animal Resources, said in an email sent to campus researchers:

“The …  incident has been reported to UCIPD and is under investigation. The Professor involved has taken a leave of absence from UCI beginning 7-1-09 to work at another university although he still lives in University Hills at UCI. This professor conducts research on rats and mice at UCI but may currently be collaborating on non-human primate studies at another institution. The professor has stated he had not been the subject of any threats or action in the past.

“UCIPD has notified the institution where the involved Professor currently works, as well as the FBI, and the Orange County Intelligence Assessment Team. UCIPD detectives are conducting an additional follow-up investigation and have placed heavy patrol checks on the professor’s residence in University Hills. We are working with our University Communications to prepare for any media inquiries.”

OK, domestic terrorism? It’s not like they blew up a building or killed anyone. But they are actually classified as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of Homeland Security. My guess is that this particular childish vandalism was carried out by a couple of students who watched a documentary on baby harp seals and wanted to show they’re more enlightened than the rest of us as a result of that viewing. Well, keep at it, boys, and while you’re at it, show how manly you are by smoking some cloves and downing a 40 in the supermarket parking lot.

Next time, do it in the daylight. See how far this kind of behavior takes you in life.

50 Responses to “Domestic Terrorists Strike Again”

  1. Frank says:

    I’m quite like animals (except mosquitoes, and not in my house) but agree that this type of behaviour is simply unacceptable and shocking. Animal research is unfortunately necessary. I am sure that those same people would not think twice about using a medical procedure that was perfected through the use of animal testing, if it meant their lives would be saved.

    These types of organisations give some people an excuse (if invalid) to act out their destructive urges.

  2. featheredfrog says:

    “Well, keep at it, boys, and while you’re at it, show how manly you are by smoking some cloves and downing a 40 in the supermarket parking lot.”

    Why “boys”?

  3. Tyro says:

    But they are actually classified as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of Homeland Security.

    Well that makes it all right. Thanks for the display of critical judgement.

    Curious how splashing paint makes someone a terrorist in the US but assassinating doctors makes you a lone rebel. Even more curious how quickly even “sceptics” buy into this and perpetuate it. Good job.

    • Adam says:

      Well Tyro they aren’t terrorists because of splashing paint but because of nearly killing multiple people, embarking in fear and intimidation tactics, destroying large amounts of property, and in a few cases planting a couple of bombs.

      • SicPreFix says:

        How do you know that? They weren’t named; they could be anybody.

        Heck, they might even be paediatricians!

        Or a pack of anti pita-pocket picketers!

        We just don’t know.

      • DangerMouse says:

        Of course we know.

        Surely you realize that you could just Google any sizable chunk of that newspaper quote and find out who they are, and you could then check THAT name (Wikipedia gets you the relevant information) to find out that they are indeed listed as a domestic terrorist organization.

        I’m going to assume you were posting tongue-in-cheek, since it’s a given that nobody posting here would be so helpless as to need every little piece of information spoon-fed to him.

      • SicPreFix says:

        Yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek. But I also have a point, which I state down below in post 7.

        Thanks, by the way, for being polite in your disagreement. That’s getting rare as hen’s teeth even on sites tailored to critical thinkers and skeptics.

      • SicPreFix says:

        PS. Of course it was tongue-in-cheek. What do think I meant by a pack of anti pita-pocket picketers?

  4. plob218 says:

    I don’t remember Mr. Dunning ever supporting doctor killers either, Tyro.

    • Tyro says:

      I didn’t say he did and I don’t care if he condemned the abortion killers or not, it’s irrelevant. In fact I’m going to assume that he would and has condemned the killing of doctors. The issue is that when very real violence and threats are carried out by certain groups, people keep their heads enough to see that it’s not terrorism yet when other groups do far milder actions in support of a different cause, suddenly that’s terrorism.

      The definition of “terrorist” should not depend on having the right or wrong political view yet that’s demonstrably what’s happening here and it sure seems as if Mr Dunning is supporting this.

      • oldebabe says:

        Tyro, For what it’s worth, I agree w/your evaluation.

        People do seem to bandy words around that are currently `popular’, without perhaps fully understanding their effect, exact meaning, or relationship to the issue at hand.

      • Dax says:

        terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|
        noun
        the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

        Violence? How about setting fire to cars and houses, and even planting bombs? Check!
        Intimidation? How about what those f***ers did here? Check!
        Political aims? To call for a complete stop on animal testing. Check!

        I sentence those terrorists to be barred from receiving any medical aid and care developed or improved with the use of any animal testing, nor shall they be allowed to use any chemical or food product of which the safety was tested by using animal research.

  5. ESP says:

    Curious how splashing paint makes someone a terrorist in the US but assassinating doctors makes you a lone rebel.

    terrorist
    –noun
    1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
    2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

    Being personally targeted by unknown individuals that hide behind anonymity, and having your home and personal property damaged by those individuals is a frightening experience – you feel violated, vulnerable, and your mind naturally starts to wonder how far these people will go to stop you. This act was intended to frighten and intimidate. That’s terrorism by definition. What level of punishment is appropriate for this level of terrorism is certainly up for debate.

    • Tyro says:

      This act was intended to frighten and intimidate. That’s terrorism by definition.

      Maybe some pearl-clutching grannie gets spooked by some paint on their house but this isn’t sufficient to qualify as terrorism. No, what is necessary for “terrorism” is violence and violent threats and that has NOT been what we’ve seen.

      Instead the US has passed draconian laws which allow over-zealous law enforcement agencies to target non-violent political groups as “terrorists” and you (and Dunning) are buying into it, hook line and sinker. I think the sceptical response should be to speak up against these attempts to silence dissent.

      We can discuss and disagree about the methods and goals they’re using but they have gone out of their way to avoid harming anyone. It’s absurd to label them as a “terrorist”.

      • Scoops says:

        Why do you get to define what is or is not terrorism in this discussion? Trying to intimidate and cause fear (terror, if you will) in anyone is, by literal definition, terrorism. It may not be the worst kind, but that doesn’t make it less wrong. I’d certainly feel all warm and cheery knowing that someone who disagrees with what I do has the ability to gain access to where I live while I’m asleep, and the penchant for overt anti-social action.

        Also: You wouldn’t classify sneaking onto someones property and destroying their things a threat of violence? Really? You think the message is simply “We don’t like you, so we’re going to paint strip your car” and not, “We don’t like you, we know where you live, and we’ll come to your house at night and do bad things”?

      • Cthandhs says:

        Dissent would be standing outside the research center and picketing or throwing paint. Trespassing onto someone’s property, vandalizing home and vehicles, painting “KILLER”… that’s marking a person out for harm. That’s a direct threat of personal violence.

        I don’t like our over-zealous “terrorism” laws any more than anyone else, but this isn’t about silencing dissent, this is about protecting a man and his family from a group of people that has targeted them for some kind of warped justice. How many people have to die before a group is identified as terrorist? Do we bet his life that they won’t take it further?

  6. Daniel says:

    It’s assholes like this who give a bad name to people who actually ARE interested in bettering the treatment of animals, as well as vegans, vegetarians, and everything else on that end of the spectrum.

    I admit, I come at it from a matter of what I will and will not eat, based solely on my perceptions of how the animals are treated. On the other hand, if a million mice have to die so that I don’t have to, test away.

    Logical? Maybe not. Cognitive dissonance? Probably. It’s a choice we have, not a position to be forced on someone else, either for, or against animal rights.

    I’d be curious if Brian would do a blog post, or a Skeptoid episode specifically about animal welfare. It’s something PETA has made a name for themselves in making glamorous and invoking visceral reactions. I’d like to see someone with a far more rational and reasoned bent take this topic on seriously.

    • Boredagain says:

      I agree Daniel. I am a vegan who is against the way animals are treated in animal farming and in animal testing. The way I see it, either the animals are not like us physically or mentally, in which case the data from testing is worthless (as has been seen in medications that were safe with animals but harmed people) or they are close enough to us that the data collected it valid, but then we are obligated to recognize there sentience and suffering as much like ours as well.

      There is a group here in Phila that pickets the establishments and homes of Chef’s and restaurant owners that serve Foie Gras. You can pretty much picture them, bull horn and all. I distanced myself from these people pretty quickly and consider them an embarrassment to the animal rights movement. I prefer education to intimidation and told them so. It’s a shame, but they are just a lighter version of these people who destroy property to intimidate, and yes, to terrorize. Some people just can’t take the fact that opinions vary and need to exert their will over others no matter what the consequences. I
      I hope they are caught and prosecuted under the law, but I also hope the scientist involved would reevaluate the suffering they are causing and the purpose it is for, especially when it comes to higher functioning primates.

      • Wrong says:

        Wait… Picketing is a legal form of protest. Sure it may be intimidating or frightening, but it’s simple civil disobediance, and nowhere near the same thing as vandalism and property damage.

        There are strict controls in place on animal testing. It’s not up to the scientist in question to evaluate whether his experiment qualifies, and the experiments are controlled to prevent cruelty or suffering.

        Now the people who test cosmetics on animals… they’re people who I’d like to see protested.

  7. SicPreFix says:

    “… vandalism … done to the property of a UC Irvine scientist on July 10….” That is a terrible thing.

    Nonetheless, not naming the organization, and referring to it/them as “[not promoted here]” is theatrical, counter-productive, and somewhat childish.

    Doing so leaves readers in ignorance of who the actual perpetrators is/are/were, and futher invites assumption and groundless speculation.

    Yes, we can all search the web and news sites to gather more information, but not only should we not have to, but what if there is/was/were more than onr guilty party/parties? Slim chance I know, but reality is made of slim chances.

    • DangerMouse says:

      Why you think someone else is obligated to do your homework is mystifying. Brian doesn’t want to name them. That’s enough justification for not doing so.

      The only reader it leaves in ignorance is apparently you. Look it up, Lazy. Highlight any sentence in the news story. Paste it into Google’s search box. That will give you the name of the organization. Now look it up on Wikipedia, or any number of other references.

      • SicPreFix says:

        Well, if you had read (and perhaps understood) all of what I wrote you would see quite clearly — I even spell it out — that I plainly and most specifically am not talking about someone doing my home work for me, or for anyone else for that matter.

        That is quite specifically not the issue. And, as I have clarified that in two places at least, I won’t waste my breath further on your whinge.

        Cheers.

      • DangerMouse says:

        Good. Then you won’t reply when I point out that I’m simply objecting to your own whinging. And pretending you’re not adopting an entitlement attitude after the fact doesn’t erase the fact.

        1. Nobody owes you anything.
        2. You SHOULD have to look it up. (see 1.)
        3. So get over it.

      • Wrong says:

        1. Go fuck yourself.
        2. His problem is not being owed anything, which still relates to the problem that you haven’t read his post in its entirety. He simply thinks refusing to name those responsible is a childish attitude. Especially when it instead directs us to mainstream news sources and their sites, increasing their traffic and popularity. It’s a pointless gesture. It’s not an overly important one, but it’s there.

        If Dunning wants to post this, he should at least tell the whole story, and not insult his readers by forcing them to ACTUALLY endorse these actions.

  8. Drew says:

    Promotion of animal welfare is a moral issue, not an empirical one, so I find it curious how often it is criticized in skeptical circles. In this case they destroyed the property of a scientist, so I can understand getting defensive.

    The “Anti-Vivisectionism” article at SkepticWiki spells out what I think of the issue somewhat better, probably because I wrote it and no one has edited it since then: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Anti-Vivisectionism

    • Wrong says:

      Because while whether or not we are moral, we can agree on things through rational debate and philosophy to be right or wrong. Now, I don’t think any of us can make an empirical claim on th rights of animals, but skepticism is a mostly science based group, and we are pro science. If someone attacks it out of ignorance in a pointless display of violence, then that’s fair play. Notice that the article is condemming, not a logical argument, and emotional one. Objectively, we can see that a wrong has been done, and we should be unhappy that it’s occured to a scientist doing his job.

  9. Thomas says:

    I’ve had my car keyed (severely) as a result of a “devil fish” logo I had placed on the trunk. A despicable act of cowardice and petty vandalism. In no way, would I consider this an act of terrorism.

    I think burning down research labs and spiking trees are reckless and potentially deadly. I’d reserve the term terrorism for acts that threaten physical harm to people not property.

    • Dr. Dim says:

      Thomas, I don’t think your “devil fish’ vandalism incident and the incident Brian discusses here are quite the same. Although they are similar.

      Assuming you have reason to believe that the keying of your car was due to the “devil fish” logo, it sounds like what happened to you was a crime of convenience. Someone saw your car, took offense at your decal, pulled out their keys and scratched up your car. This was not a planned out and organized event.

      What happened to the UCI professor was planned and deliberate. It was not spur of the moment. Once the vandalism was carried out, the organization behind it claimed responsibility. As Scoops pointed out above, this act of vandalism tells the professor, “We know who you are and we can get to you.”

      It may be “low level” terrorism, no bombs thrown or bullets fired, but the intent was to change the man’s behavior through fear and intimidation. And, as others here have pointed out, that’s terrorism. Maybe no physical harm was suffered by the man and his family, but certainly psychological harm was done, and fearing what might be done next time is a very effective tool for terrorists.

      Consider this, although I think what happened to you isn’t on the same level, might you not change your behavior due to what happened to you? Might you decide to park elsewhere? Maybe consider removing the “devil fish”? If a spur of the moment act of vandalism could get you to thinking of acting differently (maybe it won’t), how can you think what happened to the professor was not an act of terrorism?

  10. James says:

    I find it funny how Mr. Dunning goes out of his way to portray the perpetrators as dumb kids and not serious terrorists, and some moronic commenters seem to think that he is putting in the same kind of class as suicide bombers. Mr. Dunning is clearly saying that it was an act of vandalism done by mislead morons and the organization that took credit for it has been classified as a terrorist organization due to other acts they have either taken credit for or been suspected of. I find nothing inconsistent with a skeptical position in his blog post, although there is a lot of anger in it (and rightly so in my opinion). This kind of lack of respect for other’s property and feeling of entitlement to bypass legal and ethical avenues of protest is a social problem and is worthy of the commentary and attention Mr. Dunning gives it. Vandals are often kids trying to justify their destructive urges with pseudo-political rhetoric. Most kids grow out of it, some don’t and join the ALF or other bullshit organizations and become serious problems for society. A just and fair society cannot tolerate this kind of “political expression”.

  11. Tim Husband says:

    Speaking as a committed vegetarian of many years standing and animal (ok, mainly dog) lover I have to say I can only agree with Mr Dunning. What a lot of simple tosseurs.

    SicPreFix, why on earth should a high profile blogger give the ‘oxygen of publicity’ to a band of numpties out on an impotent moronic pointless onanistic spree of destruction? Damn I hate to quote Maggie Thatcher….

    May they sink into the intellectual and moral vacuum whence they came from..

    Plonkers

    • SicPreFix says:

      To answer your question I would say:

      The so-called high profile blogger has already give them a fistsful, and a bloody bloggy full of publicity by bringing it up in the first place. Actually mentioning their name would add no fuel whatsoever to the fire. In fact, it would probably tamp it down.

      1. There is no such thing as the “oxygen of publicity.” That comment or phrase is just silly and bombastic.
      2. By being theatrical about it, there is almost certainly more attention, excitement, titllation, and speculation brought to bear on what could have been a quiet, non-sensationalistic mention of the group.
      3. Similar to censorship, playing “I won’t say who they are” games, underscored by endless bombast, emotional trigger language, etc., encourages rabid and potentially groundless speculation, acceleration of tempers, and all sorts of other speculative excitements, distortions, and misrepresntations simply because of the fuel of “Ooh! Who is it? Who done it?”

      As I said it earlier, I think it is counter-productive and rather silly to play the “I won’t say who they are” game. I’d have Dunning was old enough and wise enough to know better than to let his emotions run away with his wisdom, his intelligence, and his sense.

      • Ben says:

        I most often enjoy and agree with what Mr. Dunning has to say, and in this case I agree with what he says, for the most part.

        The problem with Mr. Dunning is that he often comes across as a jerk. On several of his podcasts he argues against the use of inflammatory language when trying to get one’s point across. Yet he used language in this post that is hypocritical to his apparent beliefs.

        Once again, for the most part I agree with the content of his blog and that these people who did this are juvenile idiots, but don’t ream people for arguing in a certain way and then turn around and do it yourself.

      • Wrong says:

        I think he may be a bit of a jerk… but so am I, so that’s something I’d count in his favour, lol.

  12. Stop the species profiling! This could have been done by monkeys, you know. Or cats. Cats would do something like this. As would catfish, but they haven’t the technology for land-based vandalism.

  13. Cthandhs says:

    Naaa… If cats were involved there’s be pieces of the cars scattered near the doorstep. Paint scratched by taloned paws and the windshields chewed out in a way that’s distinctly… playful… shudder

  14. Bobco85 says:

    Here’s the press release from [you know who]‘s website: http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/press_releases/2009/pr_09_07-15_ucirvine.htm

    The most startling quote from this press release is the following quote: “We can only hope that one day someone will make you suffer as much as the animals in the laboratories you work in.”

    Oh, and their main homepage http://www.animalliberationfront.com (with the pictures of people donning masks) does not help the idea of them being a terrorist organization (way to go the “fulfilling a stereotype” route).

    I don’t think this particular act was of terrorism, but they already have an established repertoire for destruction, and I do agree with them being a terrorist organization.

    Hmmm, on a sarcastic note, I hope they don’t target me next. My “power of the purse” which helps fund these evil organizations that slaughter innocent animals just so I can order a “delicious” combo might be used against me. Hopefully they won’t realize that the economy is run by consumers, and that consumers should be the targets… (gasp!)… I blew our cover! Maybe red paint won’t show up if I wear a red shirt.

  15. I encourage some of the commenters here to consider the possibility that the Department of Homeland Security has listed this particular group as domestic terrorists for violence committed in the past, not this one act of minor vandalism. Stating “spray painting is not terrorism” says more about your reading comprehension than anything else.

  16. tmac57 says:

    From the spokesperson for this group:”if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.”
    Enough said?

  17. timmeh says:

    Personal rants about unnamed terrorist classified organizations performing vandalism, I hope this isn’t a new direction for Skepticblog…

    • Beelzebud says:

      Why not, another high profile person here uses the site as his personal soap box for his biased non-skeptical libertarian view points…

      • Wrong says:

        Attacks on scientists aren’t business for Pro-science commentators?
        And libertarianism is the only reason someone would be concerned with people resorting to violence against property to assert their views? Or to not want their property destroyed?

        I might not like the un-named portion of the post, but this is an issue for skeptics, we can’t promote science if people want to hurt the people studying it.

  18. 4nsicdoc says:

    Will any minds be changed by the testimony before a Senate Committee of J.V., a spokesman for the group, that killing researchers is violence that is part of the group’s struggle. The group has already left an incendiary device in a bank’s deposit chute, to be found by a bank employee, and has left a bomb at a house in Bel Air, CA, mistakenly thinking the house was the residence of a researcher. A member of the group solicited and received $7,500.00 for the murder of the president of a medical lab. Th money didn’t come directly from the furry extraterrestrial, but from an allied animal protection group. I would suggest that anyone who still thinks these thugs aren’t terrorists rent and see the movie, “Behind the Mask (2006).

  19. Anthony O'Neal says:

    To call most of these eco groups “terrorists” is a bit of a hyperbole, IMHO. I think that name should really be reserved for those who put peoples lives at risk to support a political goal, in order to not diminish the connotations of the word.

    • tmac57 says:

      Anthony, the group is ALF.Do some reading about them, and then decide if they have committed terrorist acts. What I have seen leads me to believe that that is an accurate label. As far as I can see no one is calling “most of these eco groups “terrorists”. As a matter of fact Brian Dunning said: “But they are actually classified as a terrorist organization by the United States Department of Homeland Security” referring specifically to the ‘unnamed group’ which is in fact ALF.

    • Wrong says:

      Not only have they commited terrorist acts, IMHO doesn’t excerpt why Dunning titled them that: The Department of Homeland Security also does, and the definition of terrorism usually falls somewhere between intimidating, or using violence. Usually this is specified to the cause of a specific, usually political aim (There are like 3 or so definitions in previous posts.) Whether or not YOU consider it terrorism is irrelevant. I consider mushroom pizza to be extremely delicious, and spinach pizza to be completely overrated, that doesn’t make anything hyperbole, or one whit of difference to the facts, or the classifications clearly stated.

      People seem to equate terrorists to some violent stereotype of a mad bomber or gunman, but any sort of violence can do. Inciting violent mobs to further a political goal? Terrorism as well.

      (Also, ALF kind of do fit the “Mad Bomber” bit…)

  20. Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health February 12, 2002 [excerpts]:

    “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.”

    http://www.geocities.com/anarcores/fbionalf.html

    • Beelzebud says:

      Oh well if James “Global warming is the greatest hoax in history” Inhofe says it, it must be true…

      One more reason to question why the label of ‘terrorism’ is applied to a case of vandalism…