Tell you what, dexter. I'll look up your address and I'll come by some night (not saying which) and throw a brick through your front window. Then I'll do it again a few nights (maybe even the next night) later. Feeling terrorized yet? And I haven't even flown to you home town.

And we can start the cross burnings on front lawns courtesy of sicaruius. Just vandalism.

"I received 30 years in prison for writing 'Jews must die' on a synagogue"
"By your logic, a mobster that breaks a store's window for not pay protection money is guilty of nothing more than "petty vandalism"."
Clearly writing "Jews must die" on a synagogue is a death threat. Clearly a mobster breaking a store's window for not paying protection money is also a death threat (or at least of impending violence/maiming). Similarly, the burning of a cross on an African American family's lawn is a death threat. All of these clearly carry the message that the perp is willing and able to kill the targeted individual/family. Indeed, in each case, the propensity for anti-semites, mobsters, and racists to resort to violence including murder is well known... and is, by design, part of the message.

ALF, on the other hand, has no reputation for violence against people. Their violence is only against property. No one freaks out when red paint is splashed across someone's fur coat... splashing red paint or breaking windows is a publicity stunt and is financial intimidation. With the attention, ALF hopes to get its target to change its ways or suffer the consequences in the market due to the negative attention. There is not "Animal Testers must die" scrawled across buildings - and certainly no record of actual violence against people to suggest that that is their agenda. ALF participates in illegal activities... and some of these might be considered, say, blackmail ("change your ways or we'll continue destroying your property")... but there is no inherent threat of violence to people. It does not rise to the same level as the examples given.

"Tell you what, dexter. I'll look up your address and I'll come by some night (not saying which) and throw a brick through your front window. Then I'll do it again a few nights (maybe even the next night) later. Feeling terrorized yet? And I haven't even flown to you home town."

@Draugnar, 1) I don't feel terrorized because I know your being rhetorical, 2) should you actually do that, yes, I would feel terrorized because I wouldn't know what you were capable of - all bets would be off... this is contrasted with, say, I go to work at the animal testing lab tomorrow and find that that $100,000 of property was destroyed and ALF slogans were painted everywhere and the cops tell me that ALF called in to claim responsibility. I know darn well that I am not in threat of my life. I know that ALF does not kill or attack people. I would be pissed, it would be a major hassle and concern and I'd be worried about my business insurance rates going up and having to delay projects that my clients are expecting, etc. - but I would not feel in fear for my life. I would not feel terrorized.

As it says in the Wikipedia article about ALF:
"The Southern Poverty Law Center has criticized Homeland Security for focusing on the Animal and Earth Liberation Fronts rather than on white supremacists, writing that, although ALF members use "frankly terroristic tactics", "for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one—something that cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.""

I really didn't want to discuss the merits of the ALF or ELF. I don't liken them to McVeigh or alQueda, but I don't put them in the same category as drunken college kid either.

And if you want to have intellectual conversation, I think trying to liken them to drunken college kid defeats the purpose of intellectual conversation.

Dexter,
"I would not feel terrorized. "

You speak only for you.

ALF certainly aren't drunken college kids, just compassionate members of society who are doing anything they can to help end cruelty.

There is a scale of terrorist activities. The ALF/etc is on the low end to be sure. Still terrorist.

And saying that they're just vandals shows a huge amount of spin. I mean, even the Weathermen of the 1970s were more intellectually honest about what they were doing.

And as far as mobsters smashing up a business.... its just property damage. They haven't hurt you. Yet. The ALF hasn't hurt anybody. Yet.

Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't. And thats part of the game... they want to freak their targets out.

"They haven't hurt you. Yet. The ALF hasn't hurt anybody. Yet."

@Jack Klein, they are by design a non-violent organization... From their website (note #4):
"The ALF guidelines are:
1. TO liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.

2. TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.

3. TO reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.

4. TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.

5. To analyze the ramifications of any proposed action and never apply generalizations (e.g. all 'blank' are evil) when specific information is available. "

By the same measure you haven't hurt anybody... yet.

As to them being on the low end of terrorism... or the high end of vandalism... I think we're in general agreement. ...though we may differ on the definition of terrorism. For me, the definition would need to include threat to people. ...what else beyond threat to us personally (not just property) causes terror?

One thing to point out is that there are other animal rights groups that have resorted to violence/terror even by my definition... (doing things like setting bombs under people's cars and on doorsteps). By my measure these sorts of crimes *are* terrorism - 100%.

"Similarly, the burning of a cross on an African American family's lawn is a death threat."

How do you conclude that? To me, that is 'We don't want you in our neighborhood.' There is no inherent threat of physical violence. Why do you jump to that?

@dexter - how can breaking anything be considered non-violent? Throw a lamp at a wall then tell the courts it was no-violent therefore you aren't guilty of domestic violence. your ass will still be found guilty and you'll go to jail. Breaking glass or vandalizing property is violence by it's very definition.

@DingleberryJones: Are you oblivious to the time period between the Civil War and relatively recently where African Americans were violently forced out of cities to create sundown towns? The statement of "we don't want you in our neighborhood and you have until sundown to get out" has the threat embedded within it.

The US has a history of white supremacy dating back to the colonies and our relationship with the American Indians, and while we shouldn't dwell on it, it's important to recognize that it was and still is prolific in the US. Debates about immigration highlight this because it's an example of people not wanting "others" tainting their communities with their dirty presence. Pretending the past didn't happen and looking at an action in a complete vacume is unacceptable.

@Dingleberry, wow. Are you that ignorant of U.S. history? As Justice O'Connor stated in reference to Virginia v. Black (link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-1107 ):
"Burning a cross in the United States is inextricably intertwined with the history of the Ku Klux Klan, which, following its formation in 1866, imposed a reign of terror throughout the South, whipping, threatening, and murdering blacks, southern whites who disagreed with the Klan, and "carpetbagger" northern whites. The Klan has often used cross burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence, although such burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central feature of Klan gatherings. To this day, however, regardless of whether the message is a political one or is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a "symbol of hate." Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 771. While cross burning does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful." ...and it goes on. Basically the decision was that a cross burning at a KKK rally could be considered free speech... but a cross burning on an African American's lawn is terrorism - and the law in question (outlawing the burning of crosses on other people's property) was upheld on that basis. "The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burning's long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence."

I think we can all recognize that violence is a term that describes a broad range of things.

language can be described as violent, but you dont go to the hospital from abusive words.
throwing a lamp at a wall could also certainly be described as violence, but throwing a lamp at your partner is violence of a different kind.
I am NOT trying to split really fine hairs here. I am saying that there are different kinds of violence that are easily recognizable to everyone.
yelling curses at someone for an hour and stabbing someone are very different things, even though both could reasonably be described as violent.

You cant honestly tell me that breaking a window is the same kind of violence as breaking somebody's face. Unless you think that inanimate objects are just as valuable as a living person. windows cant feel pain (unless they're really expensive right).

"The US has a history of white supremacy dating back to the colonies and our relationship with the American Indians, and while we shouldn't dwell on it, it's important to recognize that it was and STILL is prolific in the US."

holy shit, THANK YOU!!!!!!

No, I am not oblivious of history. I realize what a burning cross means. However, in and of itself, the act is nothing but 'mischief' or 'vandalism'. However, inherent in that is the threat of more violence.

Regardless of whether the ALF has declared itself to be a non-violent group (the Israeli and Palestinian leaders have said the same thing thousands of times - we just want peace), it is human nature to expect a ratcheting up of the violence until the perpetrator gets what they want. By the nature of the act, laws won't stop them, so how would a victim know which laws they see as the red line they won't cross.

@Sic - thanks for making my point for me. It's still violence. Breaking a window is minor violence on the order of vandalism, but it is not non-violence. Non-violent acts are sit-ins and protests out in front. The moment something gets broken or someone verbally acosts another is the moment it ceases to be non-violent. so by that definition, ALF is breaking their own code of conduct when they break a window.

Because The ALF and ELF obviously arnt concerned with laws. they are dictated by their own moral compass. And the core of their morality is that hurting other living things is 'bad'
that's why they commit property destruction. the alf does it so animals will stop being hurt by testers/vivisectors/animal based industries (fur, meat etc.) and the ELF commits property destruction to try and stop the environment from being destroyed, which would (and is) hurting every living thing on this planet.

either of these groups commiting violence against living things is completely antithetical. it would be like islamic jihad bombing a mosque for following the qur'an too closely.

"@Sic - thanks for making my point for me. It's still violence. Breaking a window is minor violence on the order of vandalism, but it is not non-violence. Non-violent acts are sit-ins and protests out in front. The moment something gets broken or someone verbally acosts another is the moment it ceases to be non-violent. so by that definition, ALF is breaking their own code of conduct when they break a window."

yeah but 'that' definition is one that relies too heavily on semantics. in reality we can all distinguish a marked difference in breaking a window and killing someone.

are you saying you cant tell the difference between property destruction and murder?

So if I am a doctor performing vivisection, how am I to know that their moral compass would stop at breaking my windows? You would be asking me to put a lot of faith in the bylaws of a mysterious group that has no problems with breaking the law. All I would have to do is look at dead abortion doctors to wonder if the ALF would resort to a similar outcome. YOU may trust the ALF to be non-violent, but why would I?

I actually am a fan of any organization that works to end cruelty to animals by non-violent means, so don't get me wrong. I'm just pointing out that every time ALF smashes something, they are breaking their own code of conduct if they are, as you claim, a non-violent organization. They are, in reality, a mildly violent organization whose violence is directed at pocket books and not living beings, but it is still violence.

@draugnar, regarding violence...
According to Google's dictionary: "Violence is behaviour which is intended to hurt, injure, or kill people."
According to Wikipedia: "Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."
Yes... there are secondary meanings... such as "that is a violent storm" or "you do violence to my reputation, sir" or "he closed the door violently"... but I think they are that - secondary meanings. Besides... when the law or the media refer to violent crimes, what crimes are they referring to? Property destruction is not a violent crime. Property destruction with intent to terrorize, however, is. The property destruction is not the critical factor - the intent to terrorize is. Terror is emotional violence, if you will. You throwing a lamp against the wall while your spouse stands near your target is clearly an act of intimidation and a threat of physical violence. ...but I doubt you'll be thrown in jail for taking the lamp out to the garbage and smashing it with a hammer. Equal damage was done equally "violently" (according to your definition)... however, in the latter there was no threat to your spouse. It is the threat that is the violence in this case.

Merriam Webster - Violent - definition number 1.

1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity

How is smashing a window in an office not extreme force or sudden instense activity. They didn't apply slow pressure to it or cut it. They smashed it.

Google dictionary and Wikipedia? Get a real source that has been around longer than the web.

"The property destruction is not the critical factor - the intent to terrorize is. "

Do what is the intent of breaking the window at a vivisection lab? Surely its not the $100 window.

So what, not do what

Violent Crime:
According to Wikipedia:
"A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with and without weapons. " "The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. " In the UK, violent crime "includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery". You get the idea.

As to ALF - yes, how does the victim know... well, ALF has been around for about 40 years and has never targeted an individual. Granted the victim may not know - but it is common knowledge.

Again with the Wikipedia. Get a respectable source with vetted material, would ya?