You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use.

Nothing is more violent and radical than what's being done to non-human animals in our society. If a researcher won't stop abusing animals and is stopped physically, whether with the use of force, or is killed, I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over that idea.

Things are picking up...It's not going to make this thing go away... don't think you're going to find anybody deterred...There's a lot of people willing to die for the cause.

Fear is an effective factor in altering behavior.

If animal abusers aren't going to stop perpetrating these types of atrocities, they ought to be stopped using whatever means necessary. What we're starting to see is the implementation of that type of strategy.

I don’t have any doubt in my mind that there will come a time when we will see violence against animal rights abusers.

Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society tolerates.

If killing [animal research scientists] is the only way to stop them, then I said killing them would certainly be justified.

There are two main goals behind ALF actions. The first is obviously to remove as many animals as possible from fur farms, vivisection labs, and other areas of abuse. The second is to cause as much economic damage to these industries and persons as possible.

I'm not saying people should go out and start killing, the California-based Vlasak says. But he's not saying activists shouldn't kill either, even though he's a doctor, devoted to mending people. There's a lot of violence used against animals Vlasak rationalizes. And some of those responsible won't stop, he says, until they are forced to s

I think that violence and nonviolence are not moral principles, they’re tactics.

If (a particular researcher) won't stop when you ask nicely, when you picket in front of his house, or when you burn his car, maybe he'll stop when you hit him over the head with a two-by-four.