If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that's morally justifiable, in our opinion...There were always innocent people who got hurt somewhere along the way but it was important that those who oppressed one group of people be stopped, and we don't see the animal liberation struggle being substantially different from these other struggles.... A sustained campaign against a particular industry or a particular organization has the potential to be quite effective.

Violence has been a necessary component of every serious liberation struggle...Violence is not the only path to liberation, but likely an indispensable one...the Press Office would like to be clear on this matter: we support all the liberationists ­ from the graffiti artists and ALF liberator to the Animal Rights Militia, Justice Department and Revolutionary Cells.

Fear is an effective factor in altering behavior.

As far as the underground liberation movement, it won't have any impact at all because they don't really care about those laws. Their activities - sabotaging, liberating animals - are already illegal so just adding one more law won't make much difference.

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.

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.

This is historically what happens whenever revolutionaries begin to take the oppression and suffering of their fellow beings seriously, whether human or nonhuman. It's regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments in this day and age.