AnnA is a Fucking Stool-Pigeon

How can one consider action against buildings and machinery to be violence? The goal of both the ELF and the ALF is to stop the suffering of animals and the environment while also taking all possible precautions to not injure human life. The Wikipedia article says that Eric and the others "considered the killing of bystanders to be collateral damage", which is extremely fucked up and not something I condone at all. But really, sabotaging dams and fish hatcheries and cell phone towers as long as no one gets hurt (and as of today no one has been killed from an ELF action) isn't violence in my opinion. Companies that profit from the suffering of animals and the destruction of the Earth are the real terrorists.

Go ahead and label me a "revolutionary" or something.

Regardless of the story, I think this song is god awful. The lyrics are ridiculously specific and mediocre. The music sure doesn't help it out either. Unbearable.

WWD4D? wrote:

I can't help but feel that if these people had listened more to Give 'Em Enough Rope and 'Julie's Been Working For The Drug Squad' in particular then they wouldn't be in this mess. Moral: listen to the Clash.

i agree

Lurch wrote:

How can one consider action against buildings and machinery to be violence? The goal of both the ELF and the ALF is to stop the suffering of animals and the environment while also taking all possible precautions to not injure human life. The Wikipedia article says that Eric and the others "considered the killing of bystanders to be collateral damage", which is extremely fucked up and not something I condone at all. But really, sabotaging dams and fish hatcheries and cell phone towers as long as no one gets hurt (and as of today no one has been killed from an ELF action) isn't violence in my opinion. Companies that profit from the suffering of animals and the destruction of the Earth are the real terrorists.

Go ahead and label me a "revolutionary" or something.

The fact is that he didnt care if anyone got hurt. That's violence.

Destroying building's and machinery is fine and dandy but think of the people's loss of jobs and lives. Wouldn't it make more sense to protest and fight in peace for them to conform to a better idea than to blow up shit and risk valuable lives? I'd love to be all cool like V in V for Vendetta but I honestly value the lives of others more than a big boom

it's a tough call.

i'm a pacifist and a realist. they don't go hand in hand

is this like a real event that happened? was it in the news or something?

Yea it's real, there's a bunch of articles about it. I think they're posted somewhere back in this thread.

wow i read some of the articles and this is the biggest load of bullshit ever!
its like your best friend breaking a window with a baseball and you taking the blame. but far worse. if anna was the one mainly behind it and helped them buy the materials, than she is only excused because of her rank. because she is "better" than them. this is the dumbest thing i have ever read.

does anyone know why they sent anna in, in the first place? i mean did they had plans befor anna came along?

She was a FBI informant, basically the FBI has people who go undercover and pretend to belong to a certain group. They do it with drug dealers, the mob, certain terrorist groups, etc. Sometimes they're undercover for years, they have to gain the people's trust and then they sell them out to the FBI and get paid for it. Basically the worst fucking job ever. This group of anarchists had probably caught the attention of the FBI with something they did, so that's why they sent Anna.

Reminds me of this shirt..

=P what is the logo in the middle i cant tell

I believe it's a wrench

an Eternal Cowboy wrote:

wow i read some of the articles and this is the biggest load of bullshit ever!
its like your best friend breaking a window with a baseball and you taking the blame. but far worse. if anna was the one mainly behind it and helped them buy the materials, than she is only excused because of her rank. because she is "better" than them. this is the dumbest thing i have ever read.

does anyone know why they sent anna in, in the first place? i mean did they had plans befor anna came along?

No, it's like you and your friend both deciding to go smash a window, and getting caught with the baseball bat in your car on your way over to smash the window.

Just because you weren't gonna hold the bat and do the actual deed doesn't make you innocent.

Wow, I just beat the hell out of that metaphor. I hope that made some sense.

The point being that even if AnnA paid for the bomb materials, Eric and his buddies still went out and bought them and intended to go home and make them. Now if there is a good argument for wanting to build bombs, but not use them, despite doing nothing but talk about blowing up buildings, then that's fine. But all evidence points to the fact that had AnnA not been an FBI informant, people would have died, and Eric would just be a criminal instead of an anarchist folk hero who was "set up".

I believe any loss of life is a tragedy. I know some people who would say Eric is a terrible person, and should burn in hell for putting civilians at risk but of course most of these people support the war. Because innocent Iraqi civillians don't count

Lurch wrote:

How can one consider action against buildings and machinery to be violence? The goal of both the ELF and the ALF is to stop the suffering of animals and the environment while also taking all possible precautions to not injure human life. The Wikipedia article says that Eric and the others "considered the killing of bystanders to be collateral damage", which is extremely fucked up and not something I condone at all. But really, sabotaging dams and fish hatcheries and cell phone towers as long as no one gets hurt (and as of today no one has been killed from an ELF action) isn't violence in my opinion. Companies that profit from the suffering of animals and the destruction of the Earth are the real terrorists.

Go ahead and label me a "revolutionary" or something. :roll:

Because it involves force to reach a goal. That's violence.

And blowing up one building does not stop the companies and the ideas behind them and the customers from keeping on. How many fish hatcheries are there? How does blowing one up solve whatever problem fish hatcheries pose? All it does is make you a terrorist, and imply further violence. And yes, when you blow up something to reach a political goal, people do presume the next bomb will be targeted at people. And that's violence too, of a kind.

And that's not revolutionary at all. People have been blowing shit up forever and ever. It's probably the least progressive idea a man can have.

kylemcdonald wrote:

i'm with you man.
the obliteration of useless human development is complete devotion to the need at hand
i may be considered a revolutionary but shit thats not needed is not shit at all.
and as a pacifist, violence may be needed to create a movement in modern america.
i don't condone violence in anyway but to create a disturbance and any kind of attention you have to create attention and sometimes it takes measures that are out of the ordinary.
we need to change this country at any means necessary

Why is it that violence and destruction are the only things you can think of when you think of "out of the ordinary"?

If you want to change the world, use your brain and your voice.

Name someone, somewhere who created a lasting change through violence. No, you are not a pacifist.

lex wrote:

I believe any loss of life is a tragedy. I know some people who would say Eric is a terrible person, and should burn in hell for putting civilians at risk but of course most of these people support the war. Because innocent Iraqi civillians don't count

Eric is a "terrible person" for believing that his actions would have accomplished anything.

Pretend that you wake up one morning, and read that someone blew up a damn, a fish hatchery, and whatever else he was planning to blow up. Is your first thought "alright, positive change in the world!"?

Because odds are you're not going to think that at all, really.

arollo wrote:

an Eternal Cowboy wrote:

wow i read some of the articles and this is the biggest load of bullshit ever!
its like your best friend breaking a window with a baseball and you taking the blame. but far worse. if anna was the one mainly behind it and helped them buy the materials, than she is only excused because of her rank. because she is "better" than them. this is the dumbest thing i have ever read.

does anyone know why they sent anna in, in the first place? i mean did they had plans befor anna came along?

No, it's like you and your friend both deciding to go smash a window, and getting caught with the baseball bat in your car on your way over to smash the window.

Just because you weren't gonna hold the bat and do the actual deed doesn't make you innocent.

Wow, I just beat the hell out of that metaphor. I hope that made some sense.

The point being that even if AnnA paid for the bomb materials, Eric and his buddies still went out and bought them and intended to go home and make them. Now if there is a good argument for wanting to build bombs, but not use them, despite doing nothing but talk about blowing up buildings, then that's fine. But all evidence points to the fact that had AnnA not been an FBI informant, people would have died, and Eric would just be a criminal instead of an anarchist folk hero who was "set up".

whether they THOUGHT about doing it or not, the fact is that anna planted the idea in their heads. if he had done it without being egged on it's a whole other story. i don't agree with killing people in the name of anarchy or peace or whatever, but i also don't agree with being set up.

just to make it clear, i do not think eric is a hero, but i think it's a tragedy that his friends were involved and sold him out, and he fell in love with someone who not only didn't love him back but set him up to go to jail. i don't agree with killing people for peace.

aestheticguitar wrote:

whether they THOUGHT about doing it or not, the fact is that anna planted the idea in their heads. if he had done it without being egged on it's a whole other story. i don't agree with killing people in the name of anarchy or peace or whatever, but i also don't agree with being set up.

just to make it clear, i do not think eric is a hero, but i think it's a tragedy that his friends were involved and sold him out, and he fell in love with someone who not only didn't love him back but set him up to go to jail. i don't agree with killing people for peace.

And that's the important part, really.

Whose idea was it? Of course the prosecution asserts that Eric was the mastermind. The defence that the FBI agent initiated the plan. So who thought of it first?

However, barring that, I think that in either case, Eric and his two friends and AnnA should be in jail. If someone told me of a plan to commit an act of terrorism, handed me blueprints, and bought me bomb making ingredients, I wouldn't go "well, since you've already gone to so much trouble I'l just....". No. No rationale person would just go along with something like that. This is why I assert that Eric should be in prison, whether or not he did or did not come up with the idea, he still went with it.

Does a person who is that open to suggestion, and who in addition to being open to suggestion goes to places where people openly speak of acts of violence deserve to walk free from this? No. I don't think so at all. At the least, give him parole and counselling. Lots of counselling.

arollo wrote:

Eric and his two friends and AnnA should be in jail.

i think that pretty much explains how i feel about it. the only unfair part of it is that eric is the one who got completely fucked when, in truth, anna, wren, and jenson were all in on it as well.

arollo wrote:

lex wrote:

I believe any loss of life is a tragedy. I know some people who would say Eric is a terrible person, and should burn in hell for putting civilians at risk but of course most of these people support the war. Because innocent Iraqi civillians don't count

Eric is a "terrible person" for believing that his actions would have accomplished anything.

Pretend that you wake up one morning, and read that someone blew up a damn, a fish hatchery, and whatever else he was planning to blow up. Is your first thought "alright, positive change in the world!"?

Because odds are you're not going to think that at all, really.

And I also wake up and hear about people dying in Iraq and I definitely do not think positive change in the world.

aestheticguitar wrote:

arollo wrote:

Eric and his two friends and AnnA should be in jail.

i think that pretty much explains how i feel about it. the only unfair part of it is that eric is the one who got completely fucked when, in truth, anna, wren, and jenson were all in on it as well.

Agree.

But please come up with something for us to argue about. I was having fun.

I am curious as to how Wren and Jenson got cut a deal, and as part of the deal, admitted guilt in the matter. I suppose the law is different for things like rape and murder, and if they both said that Eric was the ring leader then they could claim to have been under his thrall or something, but I just don't get it. Something seems really, really wrong about that.

Something also seems wrong about Eric being punished while the others were not. To me, there is either guilt or no. You can't send one man to prison forever and the other three who helped get to walk free. That's mad. Perhaps this line of reasoning is the basis for the "free Eric" movement.

It's not like these groups just blow shit up for no reason. They put their plans in action, take responsibility for them, and tell people why they did it. Of course it's not stopping anything, but it's showing there is resistance and hopefully opening up some people's eyes to the crimes that are being committed against the Earth. And to the person who asked, "What about the people that will lose their jobs?", I'm sorry, but to quote The Devil is Electric: calling it your job doesn't make it right.

They probably gave them some info they didn't have about Eric that would make a stronger case. My brother was going to jail for 8 years and offered 4 if he would give them more info on the crime and the details involving his other friends.

lex wrote:

arollo wrote:

lex wrote:

I believe any loss of life is a tragedy. I know some people who would say Eric is a terrible person, and should burn in hell for putting civilians at risk but of course most of these people support the war. Because innocent Iraqi civillians don't count :roll:

Eric is a "terrible person" for believing that his actions would have accomplished anything.

Pretend that you wake up one morning, and read that someone blew up a damn, a fish hatchery, and whatever else he was planning to blow up. Is your first thought "alright, positive change in the world!"?

Because odds are you're not going to think that at all, really.

And I also wake up and hear about people dying in Iraq and I definitely do not think positive change in the world.

OFFTOPIC:

There is a part of me who wakes up to news of people dying anywhere in the world and thinks that with just a little bit more work, we could get the population down to a nice number from 6 billion. But me, I look at people having 3 kids the same way as I do war. It's the same thing. Keep pumping out the babies, and those babies will have to eventually take up arms to get a meal. There is no avoiding it, except to fucking STOP squirting out kids. And stop worshipping babies, and stop the pro-life nonsense, and just stop disrespecting lives that really don't mean anything. Let's have communities again. That's how you start stopping war.

END OFFTOPIC.

I agree, I plan to not have children. If I want a kid I will most likely adopt. But people are free to do what they want, I don't think restricting the number of kids you can have it a good idea. Do we really want to turn into China?

You are distracting me from my job!!