If meat is murder then gunning down ranchers and blowing up meeting packing plants would be justifiable too. But it doesn't happen.

A bunch of non-meat-eaters taking their clothes off for PETA ads or throwing red paint on fur coats is a loooooooong way from what you are suggesting. Please come back to reality.

> blowing up meeting packing plants would be justifiable too. But it doesn't happen.

There have been plenty of incendiary devices planted at a variety of UK locations, including department stores that sold fur.

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.

Animal 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.

You are basically claiming that fans of The Smiths are a particularly dangerous social group. I don't think you need to worry, they were going to bring about revolution, but then they decided not to because they didn't want to go outdoors and were feeling a bit depressed.