Here is a quandary. It’s post-9/11 and there is a man giving out information on how to make an explosive incendiary device. I mean a details description to make essentially a firebomb. The device is intended to destroy buildings. Virtually anyone would be concerned about this. Obviously the various law enforcement agencies are involved. Especially these detailed instructions come with the admission that the person in question has already destroyed a building in America.

Doesn’t seem complicated right? It’s not something you would want bandied about casually, and such a person is a concern, right?

Now what if I told you that this person is Rodney Coronado and the building he destroyed was an animal research laboratory at Michigan State University. Does it change the circumstances? Is it ok for the same things I mentioned above to be done in the service of animal rights?

I’m not picking sides. I am not saying its right or wrong. But the question is where is the line to be drawn, especially in the world as it is now? I mean if people died in this arson does that become too much of a cost? If one of the people listening to his speech goes out and destroys a building that kills people, and/or animals, does that make it vile? What if a terrorist gets this same information and uses it in a manner that it was never intended for?

These are the questions that plague me whenever an activist goes to an extreme such as destroying buildings for a cause. Perhaps some of you have had the same question. Help me, and tell me what conclusion you came too. I’m sure more than just I am wondering about this.