4 ms·
In that case, why are there not a lot of people dead from this if it is that prevalent? Either the people you are describing are the most rubbish terrorists eve
by ktizo 14y ago
In that case, why are there not a lot of people dead from this if it is that prevalent? Either the people you are describing are the most rubbish terrorists ever, or they are just really not that into killing, which would make sense really, if their entire political belief is against killing things in general.
- DanBC 14y agoAnimal rights extremists have set many fires in England. There are several reasons why no-one so far has died: 1) We have excellent fire response services 2) We have strict fire safety codes for buildings - those shops should have had working sprinkler systems for example (and setting off the sprinklers was the stated aim - water damage would have caused just as much financial damage) 3) Timing the devices to go off at night when there would be minimal people working 4) The aim is not to kill people, but to cause financial loss. ALF have been successful at that. There are other reasons why few people have been physically harmed by animal rights extremists - most extremists are "non violent" (where violence applies to people, but not property). The wikipedia article for the ALF is reasonably complete.