Now PETA has a voice?

Boy, those folks at PETA are real pieces of work.

On January 26, a bomb exploded in Jerusalem. By all measurements, this bomb blast was a small one. Thank God, no one was killed and only one person needed to be treated for shock.

However, the delivery method was a little unusual. You see, in this instance, the Palestinians took a donkey, loaded it up with bombs and sent it out. The bombs were detonated by cell phone.

Sure enough, on Feb 3, Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, sent a fax to Yasser Arafat – not condemning the fact that there was a bombing – but condemning the use of a donkey. In other words, until now PETA hasn’t said a word about the deaths and human suffering (both Israeli and Palestinian) in the Middle East. But, let a donkey get blown up, and lo and behold, there they are in all their righteousness, sticking up for the innocent victims. :rolleyes:

The text of her letter can be found here.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that animals should be used as weapons. I just find it odd that (even though PETA is an animal rights organization), they couldn’t even give a statement about the human suffering that’s been going on for years, but finally open thier mouths when a donkey is blown up.

Zev Steinhardt

I’m not sure I can :rolleyes: enough. Let’s not complain about intentionally blowing up humans; let’s complain about intentionally blowing up a donkey.

Weeeeelll… Not unlike the ACLU, PETA has a cause. It involves animals. If you do things to people, that’s for Amnesty International. If you do things to animals, expect a letter from PETA. I’m not going to voice an opinion on what they think about the normal state of affairs, as many of them are bloody nuts, but this specific example… frankly, would make sense if the ASPCA did it. It’s a flagrant example of animal abuse, which is what PETA was theoretically set up to deal with.

PETA, the Fred Phelps of people against animal cruelty.

I actually don’t agree with this specific complaint. PETA is an animal rights group. There’s no reason to expect them to protest about anything else. Obviously individual members of PETA can protest through other forums.

I do agree that it is ludicrous for PETA to be complaining about the harm to the donkey. This, because the harm to the people so far outweighs it that it is inappropriate to make an issue of it in such a case. (“From now on, try to kill only people”) But not for not speaking out until now.

Get a grip Ingrid. Your actions were more than a little callous.

If there’s once bright spot, does this mean the Palestinians are finally running low on willing suicide murderers?

I think the most ridiculous thing about it is not that their issue is with the donkey (I wouldn’t expect anything less), but that they faxed Yasser Arafat as if it would actually do some good.

“Oh Crap…Hold on everyone, wait…PETA is upset.”

I might disagree with that IzzyR. Lots of organizations issue “condemnations” against things that happen that have nothing to do with their purpose. I’ve seen the OU (Union of Orthodox Rabbis) issue press statements about topics that, at best, concern Jews. PETA certainly could have issued a statement about the situation if they cared enough to.

Zev Steinhardt

Not defending their assinine (DYSWIDT??) insensitivity here, but PETA are a single-issue pressure group: animal rights. To comment on human suffering isn’t within their self-described remit.

Maybe we can get Arafat to go bomb PETA?? I used to live in Norfolk,VA about 6 blocks from their national H.Q. and I have witnessed these people in action first hand. They will call you a “murderer” for eating chicken wings and spray you with red paint if your wearing leather or fur. The real kick in the pants is that if you get pissed about it, they blame it on you for useing animal products. It sucks that they used a donkey for a bombing. Mybey they should strap a bomb to Ingrid Newkirk and rid the world of a real ass?


I normally do not jump to PETA’s defence, but please remember: the organization is in existence EXPRESSLY to talk about animal welfare.

Children’s charities do not talk about, say, animal welfare, not because they don’t care about it but because it’s not their mandate. The food bank doesn’t work itself up about overseas wars. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) doesn’t have any interest in child poverty. Amnesty International doesn’t talk about AIDS. And so on, and so on. Organizations are in existence for stated reasons, and the fact that they keep their mouths shut about things that are worthy causes but NOT part of their mandate does not make them insensitive. It’s their MANDATE to be a one-trick pony (if you will).


Granted, PETA is a one-trick pony. Granted their main concern is about animal affairs. But this is like the president of an aviation union sending a letter to Al-Quida saying “Next time, use truck bombs instead of airplaines, OK?” It’s just so silly that PETA should have simply kept their mouths shut.

Zev Steinhardt

I realize guidance systems must start off simple, but a carrot does take the cake.

Or the Sierra Club writing Pol Pot to complain about the mass graves causing erosion problems.

True. They shouldn’t.

I agree with your most recent post.

Forcing ponies to perform tricks is cruelty to animals; it degrades them and enslaves them, and should be…




From the text of PETA’s letter:

I’ll be sure to tell every human being ever killed by an animal in thousands of years of history that they actually won.

I agree, zev, silly is just the right word. Faxing Arafat takes the cake. The Onion couldn’t have done it better.

But with all the other silliness that surrounds us (which I will not refer to directly for fear of starting a great debate), I am happy to have PETA’s antics to spice up our evening news … at least they’re not hurting anyone, this time

No matter whether it’s their mandate or not, this can’t but make them look like complete jacka…

No. The noble animal is already being blown up: It doesn’t need to be insulted.

You’d have to. The Israelis will probably start shelling leader dog schools for helping future “terrorists”.

Regarding the OP: What did you expect? No offense folks, but animal rights activists aren’t really known for being able to think or appreciate the consequences of their actions.