News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

[Skyhunter]

I hear this term and I wonder, what in the world are they talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

* The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."

* Webster's New International Dictionary defines terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a The system of the Reign of Terror. b A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c Any policy of intimidation.

* The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins:

Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. But if such actions are carried out on behalf of a widely approved cause, say the Maquis seeking to destabilize the Government of Vichy France then the term 'terrorism' is avoided and something more friendly is substituted. In short, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." [4]

Except for perhaps "Any policy of intimidation", and even that is a stretch, since I don't see how spray painting SUV's is intimidating.

Even the most radical eco groups, ELF and ALF have never caused bodily harm to anyone, their actions are always directed toward property. in spite of this the FBI has declared that eco terrorists are the greatest domestic terrorist threat.

Is this just more of the same movement to stifle and crush any opposition to the corporate acquisition and dispensation of all the worlds resources?

Is there a credible threat from people who rescue puppies?

Animal and environmental sabotage groups pose the nation's top domestic terror threat, F.B.I. officials told a Senate committee earlier this year. The federal officials said they had 150 open investigations of 1,200 crimes from 1990 to 2004 in which ecosaboteurs had taken responsibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/n...30a7fb399&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/07/08/kavanagh/index.html?source=daily

The FBI says its concern is based on the fact that eco-terrorists are currently the most active of domestic terrorism groups. But when I spoke with FBI spokesperson Bill Carter, he was unable to detail the nature of the 1,200 "acts," how many had occurred in each of the past few years, or how many people have been involved in committing them (although Lewis' testimony says about 150 cases are currently under investigation). Even the top brass at the FBI seems confused about the extent of the threat. In February, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified before the Senate Committee on Intelligence that major incidents of eco-terror had actually declined in 2004.

I feel that this is a more accurate description of the whole "eco-terrorism" hype.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/9/30/161855/060?source=daily

For industry, it's a way of destroying threats to their financial interests. For Republicans, it's a way to damage political enemies. For the mouth-breathing, talk-radio-listening Republican base, it's another focus for their spittle-flecked hatred. Everybody wins.

Don't get distracted. This whole kerfuffle about eco-terrorism isn't about objectively weighing threats to our country. Don't start arguing about what really is or really isn't terrorism. Don't feel pressured to incant the line, "Of course I disavow the tactics of those groups, but ..." The merits of the case against "eco-terrorism" are a total distraction. The people waging this war could give a rat's ass about the merits.

Call it what it is.

 

[russ_watters]

Just to be clear:

-... are you saying that people are using the word "terrorism" wrong when they call these actions "eco-terrorism" or just that it's not bad enough terrorism to put much effort into stopping it?
-Also, are you saying that "their actions are always directed toward property" just because they've never succeeded in killing someone or because they've actually never tried to kill anyone?
-And do you consider arson a crime that could potentially kill people and does that matter if the answer is yes?
-Also, you may want to check out dictionary.com's definition, which has a very slight difference from the ones you posted above, but makes a big difference to your point.

 

[edward]

Again this is a case of semantics. Although I don't agree with or condone the actions of the environmentalist, calling them terrorists is a bit extreme.

In recent years, these so-called “eco-terrorists” have been responsible for more than a thousand crimes resulting in over $100 million in damage. And their tactics and rhetoric continue to escalate.

Things have gotten so bad, the FBI now considers them the country’s biggest domestic terrorist threat.

Yet the total damage done by the eco's pales in comparison to say, that which is done by drunk drivers.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yet the total damage done by the eco's pales in comparison to say, that which is done by drunk drivers.

Well drunk drivers aren't considered "domestic terrorist threats" for one...

It's fairly easy to minimize the idea of how dangerous eco-terrorists are when you ignore everything they do (ie bombings, large-scale arson...) and drop it down to "they just spray-painted SUV's". But hey, who am i to say that no one should be blindly appologizing for eco-terrorists considering all they are doing is shoveling toxic gases into the air via their "peaceful protests"

 

[Astronuc]

I guess the term is accurate for some who employ "Any policy of intimidation."

And yes, the Bush administration and many supporters do use "terrorist" and many other words, e.g. liberal, in a perjorative sense, when describing anyone who disagrees with the policies or views of the administration.

However, I do view activities like vandalism and arson, particularly to coerce or initimidate the victims to accept one's socio-political views as being more or less terrorism. Such activities are simply wrong, and undemocratic.

 

[Pengwuino]

I guess the term is accurate for some who employ "Any policy of intimidation."

I got to throw in that I think that definition is waaaaaay too broad. Couldn't we say a school yard bully is a terrorist then? I mean it's one of the more perfect definitions in my opinion. But why the hell are we arguing over what does websters say or what does some other dictionary say who is and isn't a terrorist? I some madman goes around bombing schools and hospitals and government buildings just for the fun of it in his own mind, are we not going to call him a terrorist? I mean unless we're arguing infront of some comittee on how to word a specific bill in Congress, i don't see the point in such semantics (or however you spell it).

And yes, the Bush administration and many supporters do use "terrorist" and many other words, e.g. liberal, in a perjorative sense, when describing anyone who disagrees with the policies or views of the admiminstration.

As do democrats... and people on this forum... neo-con comes to mind...

 

[edward]

Well drunk drivers aren't considered "domestic terrorist threats" for one..

But drunk drivers never the less are a threat that is many times more likely to affect the life of an ordinary citizen. Like I said: it is all in the semantics of the term.

Personally I am a lot more worried about drunk drivers than I am about eco' thugs. So what should we call drunk drivers? Inebriated life threatening non terrorist road hazards.

 

[Pengwuino]

But drunk drivers never the less are a threat that is many times more likely to affect the life of an ordinary citizen. Like I said: it is all in the semantics of the term.

But you're trying to argue over the term "terrorist" based on whether or not the damage done by it is comparable to anything else in the world. We might as well call the ocean a terrorist.

 

[scott1]

Eco-terroist are really hurting the eviroment and not helping eviroment.When they do somthing like burn down a constion site for a arparment complex where a forest used to be there causing more tree's to be cut down and the fire could cause a grass fire or forest fire to happen.

 

[Pengwuino]

Eco-terroist are really hurting the eviroment and not helping eviroment.When they do somthing like burn down a constion site for a arparment complex where a forest used to be there causing more tree's to be cut down and the fire could cause a grass fire or forest fire to happen.

Yah when you're trying to get the masses to get something good done... blowing things up and setting fires and making people fear you is NOT the way to do things especially when they have shown that they will target anyone they feel is active in something they disagree with. The methods ok if you're like... Hitler trying to get the masses to go out and do bad things because being nice and asking people to do it isn't the preferred method in that case. But in this case, you're suppose to be trying to get people to work with you and be like "yay look at all the good things you're doing, i want to join".

 

[edward]

But you're trying to argue over the term "terrorist" based on whether or not the damage done by it is comparable to anything else in the world. We might as well call the ocean a terrorist.

Nooooooooo let's leave the ocean and the sky out of this. The only difference between eco terrorists and drunk drivers is intent. Eco's know that they are going to cause damage, and exactly where and when.

Drunks don't have the mental faculties to realize that they will cause damage. Yet they do cause damage and many of them do it multiple times. And the damage they do is far in excess of what the eco'thugs do.

OK, how about if we call the DUI's: unwitting perveyors of carnage resembling certain terrorist acts.

 

[Pengwuino]

Nooooooooo let's leave the ocean and the sky out of this. The only difference between eco terrorists and drunk drivers is intent. Eco's know that they are going to cause damage, and exactly where and when.

Yah and that's a huuuuuuuuuuuge difference. It's like the difference between tripping over a rock and accidently pushing someone off a cliff (haha no really, not just as lie to get out of going to jail) and literally tossing someone off a cliff. Its the difference between an accident and murder.

OK, how about if we call the DUI's: unwitting perveyors of carnage resembling certain terrorist acts.

Well, I've never seen a terrorist act that resulted in large pileups in I-5... and I don't want to be calling infractions "UPCRCTS" from now on :) A much better acronym must be formulated

I'm tryen to figure out if POOP can be expanded tos omething... "The cop gave me a ticket for pooping". No one will want to drive drunk after that.

 

[loseyourname]

Yah and that's a huuuuuuuuuuuge difference. It's like the difference between tripping over a rock and accidently pushing someone off a cliff (haha no really, not just as lie to get out of going to jail) and literally tossing someone off a cliff. Its the difference between an accident and murder.

Off topic, but I always wondered if that would be the perfect way to get away with murder. Get your victim to come with you to a cliff, push him off, and tell the police he slipped. How would they ever prove otherwise?

Back to the topic, it seems to me that the operative difference between a terrorist and a regular person who simply likes to instill fear in people is that a terrorist uses violent criminal activity in an attempt to use fear to institute policy change. Eco-terrorists are certainly terrorists in that sense; they commit violents crimes in the overt attempt to scare people into changing policy, both governmental and business policy.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah I think that's a decent way of defining terrorists. A private citizen who uses violent criminal actions and acts of intimidation in order to change an organization's policies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If we aren't going to consider "Eco-Terrorists" terrorists when they burn and vandalize "property" in order to coerce and frighten people then I guess we shouldn't consider the KKK terrorists when they burn and vandalize property in order to coerce and frighten people.

 

[Pengwuino]

If we aren't going to consider "Eco-Terrorists" terrorists when they burn and vandalize "property" in order to coerce and frighten people then I guess we shouldn't consider the KKK terrorists when they burn and vandalize property in order to coerce and frighten people.

But haven't KKK members killed people in the name of the organization?

But then again the KKK aren't trying to change any public policy (or if they are, its a rather unrealistic goal).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The KKK definitely have sociopolitical goals. They may realize that there is no way they are going to achieve their desires through legislation but they deifinitely will attempt to set a social precedence and use their intimidation tactics to get what they want regardless of legislation. That is, if black people are afraid to live in a certain town it doesn't matter what the law states they won't be living there anyway.

Eco-terrorists feel that they can not get things done through legislation so they might as well attack the organizations they have a problem with directly. Regardless of what the government says a corporation is not going to continue activities in a certain area where they are constantly plagued by eco-terrorist attacks which cost them money in damages and delays.

As far as the KKK killing people, I have no idea. Obviously they have in the past and I'm sure that members of the organization since have done so but whether or not there has been a conspiracy to murder by the organization any time in recent history is a different story.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Eco-Terrorists are sometimes justified. Destroying property is hardly an extreme crime. Terrorism towards life is a different matter.

 

[russ_watters]

But then again the KKK aren't trying to change any public policy (or if they are, its a rather unrealistic goal).

How would the realistic-ness of the goal matter?

 

[russ_watters]

Eco-Terrorists are sometimes justified.

When/Why?

Destroying property is hardly an extreme crime.

So... what? Does that make it ok? Does the risk of killing someone with arson matter?

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't believe that ELF and ALF are trying to scare people into accepting their beliefs. I think the intent is to bring awareness by making news. I don't know anyone from these groups, nor have I ever looked at their websites. I might later but I don't have time right now.

My point is that these groups have never targeted any living beings, yet the FBI is portraying them as the greatest domestic terror threat. I think it is irresponsible for the FBI and homeland security to ignore or minimize the threat posed by various militia's, white supremacists, and radical militant groups to focus on eco groups. I don't condone vandalism, but to call vandals terrorists, and classify them as the greatest domestic terror threat facing the nation, to me is suspect. I believe it belies a deeper policy and agenda.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Eco-Terrorists are sometimes justified.

Ideology does not justifice violence. Never. It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are or how you perceive things - if you've come to the point where you need to blow things up to make your point heard, you lose any moral high ground you might possibly have had.

I've had about enough of all these ideologues pouring in from all sides with terrorism and fear-mongering. They're all condemnable.

 

[Pengwuino]

How would the realistic-ness of the goal matter?

It doesn't, sorry if i came off as if that were the case.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't believe that ELF and ALF are trying to scare people into accepting their beliefs. I think the intent is to bring awareness by making news. I don't know anyone from these groups, nor have I ever looked at their websites. I might later but I don't have time right now.

Bombings and arson definitely equate to scareing people. Greenpeace brings awareness, the AFL-CIO brings awareness, the Red Cross brings awareness, the ELF terrorizes people. That is like saying people who bomb abortion clinics are trying to "raise awareness".

My point is that these groups have never targeted any living beings, yet the FBI is portraying them as the greatest domestic terror threat. I think it is irresponsible for the FBI and homeland security to ignore or minimize the threat posed by various militia's, white supremacists, and radical militant groups to focus on eco groups. I don't condone vandalism, but to call vandals terrorists, and classify them as the greatest domestic terror threat facing the nation, to me is suspect. I believe it belies a deeper policy and agenda.

Think about the scales we're talking about. Militant terrorists (which must be differentiated from foreign terrorists entering the country)... a couple... abortion clinic bombers... maybe a hundred?... eco-terrorists... hundreds if not thousands of attacks...

Well let's make this easier... what do you consider a greater (and must be domestic and must at least vaguely fit some definition of terrorism) threat then?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't believe that ELF and ALF are trying to scare people into accepting their beliefs. I think the intent is to bring awareness by making news. I don't know anyone from these groups, nor have I ever looked at their websites. I might later but I don't have time right now.

There are less violent means of accomplishing this. Vandalism and arson are tactics used to scare and coerce people. They may not change minds but they can certainly get people to do what they want them to do through violent means.

My point is that these groups have never targeted any living beings, yet the FBI is portraying them as the greatest domestic terror threat. I think it is irresponsible for the FBI and homeland security to ignore or minimize the threat posed by various militia's, white supremacists, and radical militant groups to focus on eco groups. I don't condone vandalism, but to call vandals terrorists, and classify them as the greatest domestic terror threat facing the nation, to me is suspect. I believe it belies a deeper policy and agenda.

I agree somewhat. I would have to see the information that they have made their decision based on. I would think that gangs would be at the top of the list but I guess they are generally considered organized crime rather than terrorist operations.
In regards to racist organizations I do think that the KKK ought to be considered a terrorist organization, and maybe it is considered one I'm not sure. I would bet money though that racist organizations have very little power any more and generally try harder to stay out of the public eye than to start up trouble. Nowadays I think they tend to just hold their rallies and hope that it provokes violence from their rivals so they can point the finger at them instead.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Idon't condone vandalism, but to call vandals terrorists, and classify them as the greatest domestic terror threat facing the nation, to me is suspect.

Sabotage and arson are not mere "vandalism", and it's disingenuous of you to suggest they are. I will not advocate the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who describe non-criminal protesters as "terrorists". I equally well will not advocate labeling major felonies as "vandalism", "mischief", "hooliganism", or any other such diminuitive.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone heard of tree spiking...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking

 

[Skyhunter]

Sabotage and arson are not mere "vandalism", and it's disingenuous of you to suggest they are. I will not advocate the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who describe non-criminal protesters as "terrorists". I equally well will not advocate labeling major felonies as "vandalism", "mischief", "hooliganism", or any other such diminuitive.

Arson is a form of vandalism, ie destruction of property, but I understand your point. I was not trying to diminish these acts, but to make the distinction between persons and property.

 

[edward]

If we aren't going to consider "Eco-Terrorists" terrorists when they burn and vandalize "property" in order to coerce and frighten people then I guess we shouldn't consider the KKK terrorists when they burn and vandalize property in order to coerce and frighten people.

We don't consider the KKK to be terrorists. They are officially "perpetators of hate crimes."

It is still all in the guise of semantics. People currently called eco terrorists were formerly called protestors. Had there been no 9/11 they would still be called protestors.

The "eco terrorist" term was invented by big business to get the FBI involved. Under our current situation I would rather see the FBI protecting the general public from serious 9/11 type threats, and let the Lumber and building industries hire their own security or make use of local law enforcement.

The terrorists we are currently at war with try, with a great deal of sucess, to frighten entire peoples , even countries, not just the priviledged few. And I seriously doubt that the priveledged few feels coerced or frightened by the eco protestors actions, just pi$$ed that they lost a few bucks which will eventually be covered by insurance.

And yes protests can be violent. And protesting by whatever means is historic. Should we rename the Boston Tea Party, The Terrorist Tea Party? Should those who protested slavery even before the civil war be called terrorists? It all depends on ones point of view.

 

[rachmaninoff]

It is still all in the guise of semantics. People currently called eco terrorists were formerly called protestors. Had there been no 9/11 they would still be called protestors.

Disingenuous and dishonest. There are millions of protesters, millions of environmentalists, and then there are a small minority of arsonists and saboteurs. This discussion focused on the latter. Protesting is legitimate. Arson is a felony.

Continuing on your abuse of semantics - the KKK does not officially sanction violence or hate crimes. Many of its members are not criminals or violent. The Boston Tea Party was indeed an act of terrorism. Burning down college research buildings does not only harm a "priveledged few"; the insurability of an arson target does not mitigate the crime. And "terrorism" was around and labeled as such way before 9/11.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We don't consider the KKK to be terrorists. They are officially "perpetators of hate crimes."
It is still all in the guise of semantics. People currently called eco terrorists were formerly called protestors. Had there been no 9/11 they would still be called protestors.
The "eco terrorist" term was invented by big business to get the FBI involved. Under our current situation I would rather see the FBI protecting the general public from serious 9/11 type threats, and let the Lumber and building industries hire their own security or make use of local law enforcement.
The terrorists we are currently at war with try, with a great deal of sucess, to frighten entire peoples , even countries, not just the priviledged few. And I seriously doubt that the priveledged few feels coerced or frightened by the eco protestors actions, just pi$$ed that they lost a few bucks which will eventually be covered by insurance.
And yes protests can be violent. And protesting by whatever means is historic. Should we rename the Boston Tea Party, The Terrorist Tea Party? Should those who protested slavery even before the civil war be called terrorists? It all depends on ones point of view.

Eco-terrorists have been labeled as such for quite some time.
And yes the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act. The Sons of Liberty, who perpetrated the Tea Party, are probably the earliest homegrown American terrorist organization and you could easily parallel them with the IRA of Ireland.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Let's clean up the quality of writing here before the mods choose to lock this.

edit: (not intended at TheStatutoryApe, who posted at the same time as myself)

 

[edward]

Let's clean up the quality of writing here before the mods choose to lock this.

edit: (not intended at TheStatutoryApe, who posted at the same time as myself)

You quote a portion of my post as disengenious and dishonest, then ask us to clean up the quality of writing. hmmmm I can see where this is going.

Nothing is going to be clean, clear cut, and empiricle on a political forum.
Is politcal science an exact science?

 

[edward]

Eco-terrorists have been labeled as such for quite some time.

I can only trace it back to the early 2000's. My point was, the recent use of the word being bandied about is for it's effect more than for it's accuracy to a given situation.

And yes the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act. The Sons of Liberty, who perpetrated the Tea Party, are probably the earliest homegrown American terrorist organization and you could easily parallel them with the IRA of Ireland.

And again my point was that the term was not used at the time nor were the Sons of Liberty referred to as terrorists until recently. The term has grown to cover a very large spectrum of acts and situations, and is used differently by different people relative to those acts and situations.

It is no big deal, the future of the world does not depend on any of the above. But if it makes eveyone happy, sure the 70 year old grandmother who conspires with others and parks her car in front of a bulldozer is a terrorist.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I can only trace it back to the early 2000's. My point was, the recent use of the word being bandied about is for it's effect more than for it's accuracy to a given situation.

And again my point was that the term was not used at the time nor were the Sons of Liberty referred to as terrorists until recently. The term has grown to cover a very large spectrum of acts and situations, and is used differently by different people relative to those acts and situations.

It is no big deal, the future of the world does not depend on any of the above. But if it makes eveyone happy, sure the 70 year old grandmother who conspires with others and parks her car in front of a bulldozer is a terrorist.

You haven't looked very hard. I've been hearing it since at least the nineties if not earlier. The term was coined by Ron Arnold who eventually came out with a book called Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature in 1997. He apparently used the term as early as 1986 in an interview with the New Zealand Harold.
Believe it or not the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" has in fact been around since the late seventeen-hundreds. No, the Sons of Liberty were not called "terrorists" at that time because that was before the word came into usage. Note again that the term did not come into usage only just recently and the SOL probably have been called such long ago though not at the time they were active.

Please do not try to say we are agruing about little old ladies protesting something being bulldozed. We are referring to those who vandalize and, more specifically, use arson as there means of "protest". Rush Limbaugh is not the representative of every person who uses the term "eco-terrorist".

 

[arildno]

Off topic, but I always wondered if that would be the perfect way to get away with murder. Get your victim to come with you to a cliff, push him off, and tell the police he slipped. How would they ever prove otherwise?

Totally off topic:
I would think that the most effective way in pushing a guy over a cliff is to give him a hard shove in the back. The guy ought then to topple over and fall head first down. But in the case of accidental slipping, wouldn't it be more likely that the guy fell with his feet first?

Thus, the manner in which a guy hits the ground might be an indication of whether he was pushed or slipped..

 

[russ_watters]

Arson is a form of vandalism...

No, it isn't. Arson is a felony, vandalism is a misdemeanor and they are separate crimes. Ie, if you commit arson, you are not charged with vandalism.

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing is going to be clean, clear cut, and empiricle on a political forum.
Is politcal science an exact science?

No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

 

[rachmaninoff]

Totally off topic:
I would think that the most effective way in pushing a guy over a cliff is to give him a hard shove in the back. The guy ought then to topple over and fall head first down.

Seems in that case, they might be able to regain their balance with their feet.

Thus, the manner in which a guy hits the ground might be an indication of whether he was pushed or slipped..

If the cliff has any real height, then as I assume they'd be rotating somewhat it wouldn't make any difference.
(still totally off topic)

 

[edward]

No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

And what about this rewrite of history by the statutoryape:

And yes the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act. The Sons of Liberty, who perpetrated the Tea Party, are probably the earliest homegrown American terrorist organization and you could easily parallel them with the IRA of Ireland.

It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.

In recent years the term terrosist has became a household world and it has been applied with a very broad brush. If the term is now going to be applied to all historical events we will need to rewrite everything from the abolition of slavery to the protests of women who wished to have the right to vote.

As far as being technically correct the term used by the FBI is domestic terrorism. And it applies to a broad rage of acts which were not all previously considered to be terrorist acts or in violation of federal law. Lobbying by special interest groups changed everything. Heck, they even got bills passed that made it illegal to criticize the beef industry in Texas and twelve other states.

Timothy McVeigh definitely committed a terrorist act, but from a strictly legal point of view, if a 70 year old grandmother tosses a rock at a bulldozer, she has also committed a terrorist act.

The FBI currently has much more important things to do other than protect the interests of big business.

 

[X-43D]

Most environmentalists are not terrorists. Violence is not the way to achieve anything even if it's a good thing.

 

[SOS2008]

I hear this term and I wonder, what in the world are they talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Except for perhaps "Any policy of intimidation", and even that is a stretch, since I don't see how spray painting SUV's is intimidating.
Even the most radical eco groups, ELF and ALF have never caused bodily harm to anyone, their actions are always directed toward property. in spite of this the FBI has declared that eco terrorists are the greatest domestic terrorist threat.
Is this just more of the same movement to stifle and crush any opposition to the corporate acquisition and dispensation of all the worlds resources?
Is there a credible threat from people who rescue puppies?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/n...30a7fb399&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/07/08/kavanagh/index.html?source=daily
I feel that this is a more accurate description of the whole "eco-terrorism" hype.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/9/30/161855/060?source=daily

Back before you began participating in PF, I made the comment that on the spectrum of things (or comparison of extremism) tree-hugging, granola-eating, whale-watching liberals are not as frightening as the right-wing conservative extremists (as in “right of Attila the Hun”), some already mentioned such as the KKK, and which BTW include Islamic jihad terrorists. Come on, we know these groups can’t be defined as left-wing bleeding heart liberals.

The reason our country has verged upon becoming a fascist theocracy is because liberal pacifists do not “take up arms” in loud, aggressive activism. The “in-your-face” Bill O’Reilly’s of the world mentioned in the OP article are to be feared far more, and are the people who espouse this bunch of BS propaganda about liberals, which includes attacks against those in our society who are secular. Ohhhhhh, such a heinous crime it is to be secular…ohhhhh!

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Ideology does not justifice violence. Never. It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are or how you perceive things - if you've come to the point where you need to blow things up to make your point heard, you lose any moral high ground you might possibly have had.
I've had about enough of all these ideologues pouring in from all sides with terrorism and fear-mongering. They're all condemnable.

Violence towards property can be an excellent political tool. A moral high ground is a capitalist construction designed to prevent the masses from revolting. I am not advocating violence against the individual, though sometimes it may be justified. Regardless, property is entirely different.

An example of Eco-Terrorism that is justified:Democratic action is taken to stop the demolishing of a rainforest, which a company wants to use for lumber. The democratic action fails because of capitalist corruption. Destroying the equipment and means to demolish the forest would be a perfectly reasonable response.

 

[russ_watters]

And what about this rewrite of history by the statutoryape:

It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.

I really don't know what you mean: no history class I ever took even asked the question of whether or not the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, and the two terms don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. Since throwing tea over the side of a ship is not a straightforward violent crime like arson or tree spiking is, I think such a debate could be interesting, but the answer probably isn't as clear-cut as it is with ecoterrorism.

In recent years the term terrosist has became a household world and it has been applied with a very broad brush. If the term is now going to be applied to all historical events we will need to rewrite everything from the abolition of slavery to the protests of women who wished to have the right to vote.

I agree that the term is often misused, but I don't see how the fact that it is often misused implies that it should be misused.

 

[russ_watters]

An example of Eco-Terrorism that is justified:Democratic action is taken to stop the demolishing of a rainforest, which a company wants to use for lumber. The democratic action fails because of capitalist corruption. Destroying the equipment and means to demolish the forest would be a perfectly reasonable response.

Could you expand on that, please? You are stating your opinion, but not explaining why (a.) chopping down a forest for wood is wrong and (b.) why even if true that makes destruction of equipment justified to prevent it.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Could you expand on that, please? You are stating your opinion, but not explaining why (a.) chopping down a forest for wood is wrong and (b.) why even if true that makes destruction of equipment justified to prevent it.

Sure,

A. I should have been more specific. You are to assume chopping down the forest is the incorrect decision, by all logical indications, for the sake of the debate. In short, it is a hypothetical situation where the rainforest clearly needs to be preserved for the good of humanity. A few wealthy capitalist want to make an investment, and they disregard the greater good.

B. If destroying the equipment results in the benefit of humanity, then it is justified. The negative results would influence capitalists who disregarded morality in the first place. In the end, everything would work out.

A real life situation would have more variables, of course, but I am simply trying to demonstrate that Eco-Terrorists, in destroying property, can be justified.

 

[Informal Logic]

I really don't know what you mean: no history class I ever took even asked the question of whether or not the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, and the two terms don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. Since throwing tea over the side of a ship is not a straightforward violent crime like arson or tree spiking is, I think such a debate could be interesting, but the answer probably isn't as clear-cut as it is with ecoterrorism. I agree that the term is often misused, but I don't see how the fact that it is often misused implies that it should be misused.

In referring to a wide brush, I think he is saying property damage is property damage, and what one person sees as revolutionary (or a "freedom fighter"), another sees as terrorism.

The definition of terrorism has been debated many times in PF. If you want to argue that there are such things as eco-terrorists, then I can argue that the US is a terrorist state. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the term eco-terrorism is ridiculous on the spectrum of violence in the world.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.

Terrorism is a tactic used by a range of groups including even governments. When an organization's modus operandi is primarily terror tactics one will generally refer to them as "terrorists"(note that several people who believe that the Bush administrations primary modus is a form terrorism like to refer to them as such).
The Boston Tea Party was the use of violence (destruction of property) to coerce the British Government. This would generally be considered a terrorist act. A later incarnation of the Sons of Liberty would even call for the assasination of Lincoln, going so far as to make it part of their motto. John Wilkes Booth was a member himself.
So do you think that the IRA and similar organizations were not referred to as Patriots by their people? Do you disagree that they used terrorist tactics as their modus? Do you somehow think that even if an organization uses terrorist tactics that they should not be refer to as such?
Just what exactly constitutes a terrorist in your eyes?

Timothy McVeigh definitely committed a terrorist act, but from a strictly legal point of view, if a 70 year old grandmother tosses a rock at a bulldozer, she has also committed a terrorist act.

You continue to sidestep and mischaracterize our argument. We are not the people who are putting little old ladies in jail for tossing a rock at a protest. We are simply saying that we do not think it is inappropriate to call people who make political statements through bombings, arson, and other manners of large scale property destruction terrorists. How you don't agree with this I have no idea.

 

[Skyhunter]

No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

Excuse me, but arson is a form of vandalism. An extreme form that carries a greater legal penalty, but still malicious destruction of property.

vandalism: the willful or malicious destruction or defacement of property

arson:malicious burning to destroy property;

I don't advocate or condone arson or vandalism. I agree with TSM that there are other ways to get a message out.

And can you provide any evidence of anyone ever being convicted of tree spiking?

How about an article about someone being killed or injured by tree spiking?

Terrorism is the use of violence to terrorize people.

Do you feel threatened by someone burning down an unoccupied building?

Are you actually afraid for your life and limb by the actions of a few radical environmentalists?

If not how can you say they are using terror as a tactic if they are not terrorizing anyone?

Do you really believe that the FBI should devote the largest amount of it's resources toward these people?

 

[russ_watters]

A. I should have been more specific. You are to assume chopping down the forest is the incorrect decision, by all logical indications, for the sake of the debate. In short, it is a hypothetical situation where the rainforest clearly needs to be preserved for the good of humanity. A few wealthy capitalist want to make an investment, and they disregard the greater good.

"by all logical indications"? I suspect you'll find quite a bit of general disagreement over whether a specific rainforest needs to be saved. So who gets to decide this matter? You? Me? The courts?

B. If destroying the equipment results in the benefit of humanity, then it is justified.

Setting aside for a moment the basic moral principle that violence is never justified, how does one decide when and how much violence is justified and who gets to decide it? How about shooting those capitalists who bought the forest - wouldn't that be more likely to succeed, since they can always get another buldozer? Is that justified? Why or why not?