News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

[Bystander]

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

http://cwx.prenhall.com/velasquez/medialib/case7.pdf#search='tree%20spiking'
Don't ask me what's wrong with the link --- sawmill employee got 15' of busted bandsaw in the face and neck --- lived.

 

[russ_watters]

Excuse me, but arson is a form of vandalism.

And terrorism is a form of murder in some cases. That does not make them equivalent in general, just like calling arson "vandalism" does not make it equivalent to spray painting an SUV.

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

Why would it make a difference whether anyone was ever convicted? Anyway, google, Skyhunter... http://www.cdfe.org/convicted.htm

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

Again, google? Or how about just reading the wik link I posted before?

No, not a lot of people have been hurt, but some have. No, not a lot of people have been convicted, but some have. In general, spiked trees are marked - so that just makes it an overt terroristic threat.

Terrorism is the use of violence to terrorize people.

Read your own definitions, Skyhunter - the threat of violence is terrorism as well.

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

I'm an engineer, Skyhunter - I'm often in buildings that are under construction. Yes, absolutely, that is an act of terrorism.

And by the way - you've made assertions about the motives of these terrorists while admitting you haven't bothered to check to see if they ever state their motive. That's argument from ignorance. When you do check, you will find that even major, supposedly legitimate groups like PETA condone violence against people. It doesn't matter if they haven't killed anyone yet - they want to and if we allow them the chance, eventually they will. In the meantime, it's still wrong to commit arson, intimidate, destroy property, etc.

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

I'm not a logger and I don't live in a place where ecoterrorism is common. If I were or did, I'd feel threatened.

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

Uh, because they are using it and they are terrorizing people.

I'm not a worrier in general, though, Skyhunter - Al Qaeda doesn't worry me either.

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

Yes, absolutely - and that has nothing to do with whether or not it can be classified as terrorism, Skyhunter. The "mere" fact that these actions are so widespread and common makes it an important problem for the FBI to deal with. Yeah, I think it is worthwhile for thousands of crimes to not be ignored.

You weighed ecoterrorism against the militias and the KKK - have either of those cost the US $110 million in damage over the past 10 years? Are attacks by either group on the rise? Ecoterrorism is a big and growing problem.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/

 

[edward]

Just what exactly constitutes a terrorist in your eyes?

Mohammed Atta! Now you may get get out your wide angle brush and use your over analytic interpretation to paint his picture with enough width to include the little old lady.

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.

I have side stepped nothing and the little old lady who throws the rock will be put in prison. What part of that don't you understand??

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.

I can see your point, but again you are using a "one size fits all" approach to to try to fit tree huggers and Timothy McVeigh into the same monkey suit. Are environmental statements really political statements?? To me this is questionable.

From my point of view people who intentionally try to inflict death and great bodily harm fit the definition of terrorist. Actions less than that start to go into a gray area that includes, "a crime has been comitted", but it was definately not a terrorist act.

Some where a line must be drawn. My personel line is drawn when the intentional use of firearms or explosives enters the picture.

If a man gets angry with his landlord and burns his apartment as revenge, he is charged with arson, not terrorism. There are even degrees of arson and the man will be charged appropriately by local authorties.

The envirnmentalist on the other hand, who burns a bulldozer or is even only present when the equipment was burned, will experience the full wrath of the FBI and the federal governments terrorist laws.

The stricter laws pertainting to damage by protestors were passed at the behest of the construction and lumber industries. Do they deserve to have special laws passed just for them? In my opinion, no, they do not. They can use the same laws that the general population lives with.

 

[Skyhunter]

And terrorism is a form of murder in some cases. That does not make them equivalent in general, just like calling arson "vandalism" does not make it equivalent to spray painting an SUV. Why would it make a difference whether anyone was ever convicted?

You illustrate my point so eloquently.

Why should blowing up a federal building full of people be equivalent to the destruction of a transmission tower.

No, not a lot of people have been hurt, but some have. No, not a lot of people have been convicted, but some have. In general, spiked trees are marked - so that just makes it an overt terroristic threat.

There is that word again. You really believe that spiking a tree, to save it is an act of terrorism.

And how do you know that the trees were not spiked by anti-environmentalists trying to cast dispersions on environmentalists?

When you do check, you will find that even major, supposedly legitimate groups like PETA condone violence against people.

I have checked and PETA does not condone violence.

It doesn't matter if they haven't killed anyone yet - they want to and if we allow them the chance, eventually they will.

Wrong they do not want to hurt anyone, which is why they have not.

You weighed ecoterrorism against the militias and the KKK - have either of those cost the US $110 million in damage over the past 10 years?

I guess it depends on what you mean by the US. Did the US taxpayer foot the bill or did the insurance companies, many of which are multi-national.

Are attacks by either group on the rise? Ecoterrorism is a big and growing problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/

My assertion is that there is no such thing as ecoterrorism, so how could it be on the rise. Ecovandalism may be on the rise, even in extreme forms of firebombing and arson, but since they are not targeting people, they are not terrorists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I can see your point, but again you are using a "one size fits all" approach to to try to fit tree huggers and Timothy McVeigh into the same monkey suit. Are environmental statements really political statements?? To me this is questionable.

LOL! While trying to tell me that you are not mischaracterizing my argument you go ahead and mischaracterize it once again. Please show me where I have stated that "tree huggers" are terrorists. I think you are confusing me with Rush Limbaugh again.
Yes I think that environmental causes are political in nature. Do you find Greenpeace and the Green Party to be questionable?

I have side stepped nothing and the little old lady who throws the rock will be put in prison. What part of that don't you understand??

What part of the fact that I have neither advocated nor endorsed this do you not understand?

If a man gets angry with his landlord and burns his apartment as revenge, he is charged with arson, not terrorism. There are even degrees of arson and the man will be charged appropriately by local authorties.

The envirnmentalist on the other hand, who burns a bulldozer or is even only present when the equipment was burned, will experience the full wrath of the FBI and the federal governments terrorist laws.

One big difference you fail to recognize in your parallel is that the "Eco-Terrorist" belongs to and conspires with an organization whose ideology and aims are being expressed by the individuals criminal actions. The fact that this connection exists makes the issue larger than the singular incident. People involved in gangs and organized crime who commit offenses are charged differently than those who act as a lone agent. People who take part in "hate crimes" are charged differently then those with different aims and motives. Do you think that charges that have been adjusted to fit these crimes more "appropriately" are erroneous as well?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My assertion is that there is no such thing as ecoterrorism, so how could it be on the rise. Ecovandalism may be on the rise, even in extreme forms of firebombing and arson, but since they are not targeting people, they are not terrorists.

Why is the targeting of persons important to the definition of terrorism?
I agree that it's a worse thing to target people, but why does the targeting of people equate to terrorism while targeting of "property" is not?
If Al Queda stated that they hit the WTC early in the morning to avoid casualties and that their choice of target was mearly symbolic would you then consider their crimes, or intentions, to be something less than terrorism?

 

[SOS2008]

You people have got to be joking. Environmentalists who destroy property are not terrorists. As stated above (by edward) they are breaking the law like any other arson, vandal or what have you. A right-wing fundamentalist who bombs an abortion center resulting in death and/or injury—is that a terrorist?

 

[rachmaninoff]

You people have got to be joking. Environmentalists who destroy property are not terrorists. As stated above (by edward) they are breaking the law like any other arson, vandal or what have you. A right-wing fundamentalist who bombs an abortion center resulting in death and/or injury—is that a terrorist?

Refer back to the post by loseyourname on page one; do you disagree with his definition of "terrorism" or how he applies it here, and if so can you give a better one?

 

[X-43D]

Destroying thousands of forests with no need is also a crime against nature. Maybe not in the US but in other countries deforestation is becoming a serious issue.

http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/Envfacts/facts/deforestation.htm

 

[russ_watters]

You illustrate my point so eloquently.
Why should blowing up a federal building full of people be equivalent to the destruction of a transmission tower.

I never said it was. You are the one trying to cut-down the definition of terrorism while simultaneously condoning the actions that are wrong whether they are terrorism or not! It's almost like you think that if you can show that it isn't terrorism, then it isn't wrong. Sorry, but it's still wrong either way.

There is that word again. You really believe that spiking a tree, to save it is an act of terrorism.

Can you explain to me exactly how spiking a tree saves it without the threat of bodily harm to the logger trying to cut it down? It doesn't get any clearer-cut than that.

And how do you know that the trees were not spiked by anti-environmentalists trying to cast dispersions on environmentalists?

Now, that's just irrational. There isn't anything to argue if you are just going to choose to believe everything is a big conspiracy. And don't forget, you started this thread: The 'we can't be sure of anything' argument is useless for you to try to get people to agree with you. If you can't support your point with a logical argument and facts, there must be something wrong with it.

I have checked and PETA does not condone violence.

You must not have checked very hard. PETA even funds terrorists (ELF) and their defense in court. Closing you eyes, singing lalalalalalalala, and being willfully ignorant isn't going to change that. A few quotes:

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted, PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was using that money, bragging to
the staff that she had spent $25,000 on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.
A PeTA consultant won control of the Toronto Humane Society, endowed with $14 million, last fall through a proxy fight. One of her employees recently was arrested for possession of explosives and weapons, and vandalizing a restaurant that served chicken ...
David Arnold, "Fight Looms over Animal Rights Group," Boston Globe, April 10, 1987, p. 23.
PETA's point man on fur, Dan Matthews, said he admired serial killer Andrew Cunanan "because he got Versace to stop doing fur" -- that must have been some other Dan Matthews working for some other animal rights group.
Bruce Friedrich told an audience at Animal Rights 2001 that while he doesn't personally advocate animal rights terrorism, "I do advocate it, and I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation"

I won't bother posting the links to those quotes, since apparently you aren't looking at them anyway. But if you don't believe me and you really want to know rather than just speculate, assume, and fantasize, they are easy enough to Google.

I guess it depends on what you mean by the US. Did the US taxpayer foot the bill or did the insurance companies, many of which are multi-national.

How does that matter? You do understand how insurance works, right? If you get in a car accident, I (and everyone else with the same car insurance company) pay for it.

My assertion is that there is no such thing as ecoterrorism, so how could it be on the rise.

Heh, yeah - I assume I'm right, therefore I must be right.

Regardless, you made a second point - that the FBI shouldn't be putting so much effort into it. And...

Ecovandalism may be on the rise, even in extreme forms of firebombing and arson...

...so regardless of what you call it, it most certainly is worth the FBI's time.

And again, reread your own definitions of terrorism - people do not have to die in order for it to be terrorism.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

But as others have noted, which it is depends mostly on the intent of the crime. One thing that Skyhunter is right about is that property destruction simply for the sake of property destruction is not 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.

By all means, feel free...

If you want to talk about things like the atomic bomb of WWII, I'm comfortable with defining that as a terrorist act. Calling the US a "terrorist state" is a little different (it implies that terrorism is an essential component of our existence), but regardless - you won't find the double-standard you hare hoping to find with me.

 

[SOS2008]

Refer back to the post by loseyourname on page one; do you disagree with his definition of "terrorism" or how he applies it here, and if so can you give a better one?

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

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

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.

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

As opposed to:

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

...Other acts, which are nonviolent in nature, cannot be properly referred to as "eco-terrorism" even though they might be annoying or disruptive to others. However, some definitions are raising controversy and civil rights issues by using an all-encompassing definition that could be interpreted to include virtually all environmental protests, even those that would otherwise be legal.

The brush is becoming too wide, and obviously used by certain folks with a certain agenda.

 

[Art]

Big business in the US has decided environmentalists are bad for their interests and so they have used their clout to persuade (or bribe) the US gov't to attack the environmentalists' structures.

Proscribing their organisations as terrorism allows the gov't massive leeway in smashing what was becoming a very popular movement by seizing their assets and being able to arrest and detain people without them having recourse to the courts. In fact as they are now labelled terrorists they can even be shipped off to Guantanamo bay for torture and indefinite detention.

Apart from allowing corporate America to dismantle the existing environmental groups it also scares away any potential new members as they are afraid of being labelled terrorists and so becoming subject to the provisions of the Patriot Act. (One wonders how many people realized that this act was going to be used in this way?)

On an international level the corporate powers have successfully stalled any attempt at US involvement in international environmental protection laws even going so far as to still deny the existence of global warming through greenhouse gasses despite the fact that respected publications such as New Scientist have said they will no longer publish letters from the crackpots who try to argue this case.

 

[Informal Logic]

But as others have noted, which it is depends mostly on the intent of the crime. One thing that Skyhunter is right about is that property destruction simply for the sake of property destruction is not terrorism. By all means, feel free...
If you want to talk about things like the atomic bomb of WWII, I'm comfortable with defining that as a terrorist act. Calling the US a "terrorist state" is a little different (it implies that terrorism is an essential component of our existence), but regardless - you won't find the double-standard you hare hoping to find with me.

I do not hope to find double standards, and this is the point of such labeling. And to that point:

State terrorism is a controversial concept that is without a clear definition (see below). Depending on definition it can include acts of violence or repressions perpetrated by a national government or its proxy. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the speaker considers the action justified or necessary, or whether it is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It may also depend on whether the speaker supports the government in question.

State terrorism, where it is considered to apply, may be directed at the state's own population or at others. It may be carried out by the state's own forces (such as army or police) or other organisations, where it is more usually called state sponsored terrorism.

United States
A number of critics have labeled actions of the United States of America as terrorism. For instance, the U.S. has taken sides in various foreign civil wars and conflicts, notably siding with Israel against other Middle East countries. Also the U.S. is often accused of working with and supporting countries, political organizations, and juntas with questionable human rights practices and intentions. The CIA, in particular, has been accused of supporting terrorist organizations in other countries. (See also: Operation Condor, Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism#United_States

One such critic has been the highly respected Noam Chomsky, excerpt from:

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State
An Interview with Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian

...There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm

And this was before recent scandals regarding prisoner treatment, secret prisons, rendition, and so forth.

I do not completely agree with these definitions, and this is the point. As with any civil rights issue, one must understand the motive and direction of the term eco-terrorism. Acceptance of pejorative terms for one group opens the door for misuse toward other groups…perhaps one day a group or cause you support or participate in that someone else is against and wants to suppress.

 

[SOS2008]

BTW, in reading definitions of terrorism in Wikipedia and the various types, under religious terrorism the KKK is included as "A group of racist Protestant Christian organizations with a history of violence against blacks, Jews, and Catholics."

Getting back to Bill O'Reilly and a recent broadcast on FOX News with Jerry Fallwell and claims there is a "war on Christmas," some education officials of targeted public schools have received hateful mail of all sorts, as well as guest Rev. Barry Lynn, including death threats. And then there is Pat Robertson...

I'll take a left-wing environmentalist over these blockheads any day. Hmm, or should I say Evangeli-terrorism? Well you get the drift (maybe)...

 

[rachmaninoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
As opposed to:

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

Selective boldfacing of quotes doesn't change their meaning. Reread your own quote (now with my emphases):

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

If you're trying to attack what Rush Limbaugh's followers say, that's entirely besides the point:

I will not advocate the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who describe non-criminal protesters as "terrorists".

I think you are confusing me with Rush Limbaugh again.

 

[SOS2008]

Selective boldfacing of quotes doesn't change their meaning.

I am well aware of the entire text, all of which I included with intent. The portions in bold are made bold in accordance with my point that the term is being misused and blown out of proportion.

If you're trying to attack what Rush Limbaugh's followers say, that's entirely besides the point:

Providing an example of how such terms could be used in regard to other groups (Evangeli-terrorism) is completely relevant. Causing divisiveness, or even inciting people to violence (e.g., Robertson’s call for assassination of Chavez) is damaging. But like environmentalists, it is not what we all know real terrorism is, and at least in the case of global warming, the environmentalists have a worthy cause.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You people have got to be joking. Environmentalists who destroy property are not terrorists. As stated above (by edward) they are breaking the law like any other arson, vandal or what have you.

As stated by me above the circumstances of the crimes are not of the same nature as just any other vandal or arsonist.
Considering the position you are taking do you think it is wrong to charge people with "hate crimes" or charge them differently when they are engaging in illegal activities that are a part of organized crime or gang activity or some conspiracy that is more complex than the singular incident?
If you do think that the augmentation of charges to appropriately reflect such things as motive and being party to a larger more complex organization of criminal activity then why would you fail to agree when it comes to a certain group of people?

A right-wing fundamentalist who bombs an abortion center resulting in death and/or injury—is that a terrorist?

YES! And why would I think otherwise? Why would you?
Do you think that people here who are anti-abortion may side with anti-abortion "terrorists" and say that their actions aren't a form of terrorism just because you would do so with the people whose aims you agree with? And even if they did then would you agree with them to hold hypocritical beliefs on how people should be charged and punished?

Lets use your change up of scenario then.
I think that people who bomb abortion clinics should be charged with committing a terrorist act. If you don't agree please explain to me why.
Or better yet...
An environmentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
An Anarchist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Christian Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Muslim Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
Tell me here, in all seriousness, what the hell is the difference aside from their ideological alignments?

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).

I just wanted to point out that this definition is not a very appropriate one. When someone uses tactics outside "conventional warfare" and the "laws of war" that would usually mean that a war is going on and such combatents are referred to as a Guerillas. Terrorist generally is not used in reference to people engaged in a war but those engaged in violent political protest outside of war.

 

[SOS2008]

As stated by me above the circumstances of the crimes are not of the same nature as just any other vandal or arsonist.
Considering the position you are taking do you think it is wrong to charge people with "hate crimes" or charge them differently when they are engaging in illegal activities that are a part of organized crime or gang activity or some conspiracy that is more complex than the singular incident?

If you do think that the augmentation of charges to appropriately reflect such things as motive and being party to a larger more complex organization of criminal activity then why would you fail to agree when it comes to a certain group of people?

YES! And why would I think otherwise? Why would you?
Do you think that people here who are anti-abortion may side with anti-abortion "terrorists" and say that their actions aren't a form of terrorism just because you would do so with the people whose aims you agree with? And even if they did then would you agree with them to hold hypocritical beliefs on how people should be punished?
Lets use your change up of scenario then.
I think that people who bomb abortion clinics should be charged with committing a terrorist act. If you don't agree please explain to me why.
Or better yet...
An environmentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
An Anarchist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Christian Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Muslim Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
Tell me here, in all seriousness, what the hell is the difference aside from their ideological alignments?

I just wanted to point out that this definition is not a very appropriate one. When someone uses tactics outside "conventional warfare" and the "laws of war" that would usually mean that a war is going on and such combatents are referred to as a Guerillas. Terrorist generally is not used in reference to people engaged in a war but those engaged in violent political protest outside of war.

Exactly. My position is that a line needs to be drawn between merely breaking the law (arson, vandalism, inciting people to violence, even when resulting in murder, even assassination, etc.) and terrorism--regardless of motive. Terms such as arson, murder, etc. exist for this reason.

To the contrary, unconventional war is a very good way to differentiate.

Unconventional warfare (UW) …is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict. On the surface, UW contrasts with conventional warfare in that: forces or objectives are covert or not well-defined, tactics and weapons intensify environments of subversion or intimidation, and the general or long-term goals are coercive or subversive to a political body.

...Unconventional warfare seeks to instill a belief that peace and security are not possible without compromise or concession. Objectives include war weariness, curtailment of civilian standards of living and civil liberties associated with greater security demands, economic hardship linked to the costs of war; hopelessness to defend against assaults, fear, depression, and disintegration of morale. The ultimate goal of this type of warfare is to motivate an enemy to stop attacking or resisting even if it has the ability to continue. Failing this, a secondary objective can be to emasculate the enemy before a conventional invasion.

For more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_Warfare And in which unconventional warfare and terrorism are cross referenced.

IMO, Al Qaeda is conducting an unconventional war. Furthermore, recent terrorist acts in Jordan are a very good example of “coordinated attacks” characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.

On the spectrum of things I cannot see environmentalists, or any of the other groups you listed in the same classification.

 

[Skyhunter]

I never said it was. You are the one trying to cut-down the definition of terrorism while simultaneously condoning the actions that are wrong whether they are terrorism or not! It's almost like you think that if you can show that it isn't terrorism, then it isn't wrong. Sorry, but it's still wrong either way.

You are the one who said that my statement that arson is not vandalism was factually wrong. I never condoned the violent actions of ELF or ALF, saying that I did is an outright lie and you know it. My point is, and has been, that to characterize these people as terrorists is an exaggeration.

It is also a double standard since the people bombing abortion clinics are not considered terrorists by the FBI.

Can you explain to me exactly how spiking a tree saves it without the threat of bodily harm to the logger trying to cut it down?

If a tree has a spike, it is of no value since there is no easy way to remove the spike or tell if there are any more. The cost to replace a saw blade at the lumber mill makes the it economically unfeasible.

Now, that's just irrational. There isn't anything to argue if you are just going to choose to believe everything is a big conspiracy. And don't forget, you started this thread: The 'we can't be sure of anything' argument is useless for you to try to get people to agree with you. If you can't support your point with a logical argument and facts, there must be something wrong with it.

Excuse me. Your the one who brought up tree spiking. So I will defer to your opinion about supporting an argument with facts.
The rest I won't respond to because it is ad hominem. And unlike a "super mentor", I can't get away with it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Exactly. My position is that a line needs to be drawn between merely breaking the law (arson, vandalism, inciting people to violence, even when resulting in murder, even assassination, etc.) and terrorism--regardless of motive. Terms such as arson, murder, etc. exist for this reason.
To the contrary, unconventional war is a very good way to differentiate.
For more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_Warfare And in which unconventional warfare and terrorism are cross referenced.
IMO, Al Qaeda is conducting an unconventional war. Furthermore, recent terrorist acts in Jordan are a very good example of “coordinated attacks” characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.
On the spectrum of things I cannot see environmentalists, or any of the other groups you listed in the same classification.

Ofcourse they are crossreferenced because they are related. Guerilla warfare should also be crossreferenced with the two. On the whole Al Queda is fighting an "Unconventional War". They are fighting that war with "terror tactics". You can call someone who fights an unconventional war a terrorist, guerilla, insurgent, spy, assasin, ect. You can even call a guerilla a terrorist or insurgent or vice versa. All of these tactics fall within "unconventional warfare" and criss cross one another.
"Terrorism" is a tool. It is a tool that can be used by all sorts of organizations paramilitary or not and whether they take life or not.
Long before 9/11, and this idiotic craze over what a terrorist is, "terrorist" was already accepted to mean those who use violent methods to make political statements. Under this definition we have heard of kidnappers, plane hijackers(just hijackers, not necessarily people who crash them into buildings), people who bomb buildings(vacant or occupied), people who send letter bombs, ect ect ect... all being described as terrorists. The people were not paramilitary. They did not necessarily harm anyone or kill any one. They were not necessarily fighting any sort of "war", unless you want to apply that term with a wide brush. Why all the sudden do we want to make the term mean only those like Al Queda?

 

[SOS2008]

Ofcourse they are crossreferenced because they are related. Guerilla warfare should also be crossreferenced with the two. On the whole Al Queda is fighting an "Unconventional War". They are fighting that war with "terror tactics". You can call someone who fights an unconventional war a terrorist, guerilla, insurgent, spy, assasin, ect. You can even call a guerilla a terrorist or insurgent or vice versa. All of these tactics fall within "unconventional warfare" and criss cross one another.

"Terrorism" is a tool. It is a tool that can be used by all sorts of organizations paramilitary or not and whether they take life or not.
Long before 9/11, and this idiotic craze over what a terrorist is, "terrorist" was already accepted to mean those who use violent methods to make political statements. Under this definition we have heard of kidnappers, plane hijackers(just hijackers, not necessarily people who crash them into buildings), people who bomb buildings(vacant or occupied), people who send letter bombs, ect ect ect... all being described as terrorists. The people were not paramilitary. They did not necessarily harm anyone or kill any one. They were not necessarily fighting any sort of "war", unless you want to apply that term with a wide brush. Why all the sudden do we want to make the term mean only those like Al Queda?

So perhaps the terms revolutionary, guerilla, insurgent, etc. will continue to be used in global politics, and perhaps the terms arson, vandal, murderer, etc. will continue to be used for domestic crime -- all part of a rich language that provides nuances applicable to varying scenarios, regardless of some commonality of tools and/or motives.

To use blanket terms inferring all these activities are one in the same is absurd, and in the case of environmentalists it is being done to discredit a cause.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So perhaps the terms revolutionary, guerilla, insurgent, etc. will continue to be used in global politics, and perhaps the terms arson, vandal, murderer, etc. will continue to be used for domestic crime -- all part of a rich language that provides nuances applicable to varying scenarios, regardless of some commonality of tools and/or motives.

The point of the term "terrorist" being applied is part of that "rich language that provides nuances applicable to varying scenarios" you mention and as I mentioned earlier it's part of the varying sorts of charges that can be leveled against someone depending on their motives and the situation(pretty much the same thing you just said).
So if we don't charge them with taking part in "terrorist type activities" as the law likely reads then what are we going to charge them with? If we are to reflect in the charges against them that they are not just some person who set something on fire then what do we call it?

To use blanket terms inferring all these activities are one in the same is absurd, and in the case of environmentalists it is being done to discredit a cause.

For one thing it's just a term. The term does not discredit anyone. People who participate in activities that could be described as "terrorism" discredit themselves and the organizations they belong to or claim to belong to because most people do not think it is right to do such things. Every organization that has been accused of "terrorism" and the people who agree with them say they are not "terrorists" and those who call them such are just trying to discredit them.

Secondly it is not a blanket term. The term is meant to describe the motives of the actions not the actions themselves. A person can not just be charged with "terrorism" just as they can not be charged with "hate crime". A skin head who beats up a black person is charged for the assault and "hate crime" is attached to the charge to put the incident in proper perspective. A person can kidnap a child and it can be labeled a "hate crime" if that was the motive.
The only thing that is covered in the supposed "blanket" is all persons who possesses the particular type of motive for their criminal activities.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How about some actual legal definitions...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4) In this section-

(a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

http://i-p-o.org/terrorism-legal-definition.htm
Here's a lengthy discussion which eventually leads to the authors summery suggestion of a legal definition in absence of an official definition from the UN.

Putting everything together now, one might come up with this core legal definition of terrorism: the employment by states, groups or individuals of acts or threats of violence or use of weapons deliberately targeting the civilian population, individuals or infrastructure for the primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population in relation to some political or quasi-political objective and undertaken with an intended audience.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Some more proposals...

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

 

[russ_watters]

You are the one who said that my statement that arson is not vandalism was factually wrong.

Please reread our exchange more carefully. They are related, but they are not the same. It is factually wrong to say they are equivalent.

I never condoned the violent actions of ELF or ALF, saying that I did is an outright lie and you know it.

When you continue to speak in generalizations and argue that it isn't worth the FBI's time to investigate this stuff, you make it sound like you condone such actions.

If your entire point were in the usage of the word terrorism, all the rest would be moot - but you are making statements sympathetic to the cause that these acts are being comitted to further. That makes it difficult to reconcile your statement that you don't condone these actions with your support for the cause and your belief that these actions don't warrent such treatment by the FBI.

My point is, and has been, that to characterize these people as terrorists is an exaggeration.

Fine. I disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that this is an important issue to the FBI, does it?

It is also a double standard since the people bombing abortion clinics are not considered terrorists by the FBI.

That's wrong: http://www.disastercenter.com/birmingh.htm

A cursory read of that and a few other sites implies that the FBI used to not call any domestic act terrorism. But I'm not certain. Either way, abortion clinic bombings are terrorism.

If a tree has a spike, it is of no value since there is no easy way to remove the spike or tell if there are any more. The cost to replace a saw blade at the lumber mill makes the it economically unfeasible.

Interesting perspective, but that is no more valid than saying 9/11 was purely an economic attack. Any terrorist attack is going to cost money, but that isn't why these attacks are carried out. Tree spiking is done for the purpose of scaring people to stop them from cutting down trees.

Excuse me. Your the one who brought up tree spiking. So I will defer to your opinion about supporting an argument with facts.

Heh - no. Tree spiking is the fact. You supported your argument with less than all the facts, ie comparing arson to painting cars, and leaving out the other forms of terrorism that ecoterrorists commit. That's kinda like arguing that the KKK is ok because they are a Christian organization (they are) and leaving out the fact that they also commit crimes. Argument via omission.

I simply brought up a fact that you have ignored because it doesn't fit your argument.

The rest I won't respond to because it is ad hominem. And unlike a "super mentor", I can't get away with it.

It is not ad hominem to point out that an argument based on speculation is not logically valid.

edit: a few other points that you ignored (that you called ad hominem?)

-You did not address the definition issue - the fact that a threat alone can be terrorism.
-You did not address the question of whether changing the word the FBI uses would make investigating/fighting these acts not worth the FBI's time.

 

[Informal Logic]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm
http://i-p-o.org/terrorism-legal-definition.htm
Here's a lengthy discussion which eventually leads to the authors summery suggestion of a legal definition in absence of an official definition from the UN.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Some more proposals...

Good information, and according to it I would not classify environmentalists as using weapons "for the primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population in relation to some political or quasi-political objective and undertaken with an intended audience." I am far more afraid of a lone maniac shooting everyone in a McDonalds than I am environmentalists.

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm
http://i-p-o.org/terrorism-legal-definition.htm
Here's a lengthy discussion which eventually leads to the authors summery suggestion of a legal definition in absence of an official definition from the UN.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Some more proposals...

In regard to legal definitions provided:

Despite some commonalities, I will continue to see differences--sometimes huge differences. For example, it angers me that Bush refers to insurgents as terrorists. The two are very different, and we know referring to insurgents as "terrorists" is propaganda.

And still yet in other incidents there is no consistency. Individual(s) who bomb abortion clinics fit the description of terrorists far more than environmentalists, but are not referred to as terrorists.

It should be apparent that the term "terrorist" is being selectively applied to environmentalists for propaganda purposes. If you choose to be naive, suit yourself.

 

[edward]

It appears that truth is terror to Enron mogul Kenneth Lay:

CBS/AP) Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay launched an impassioned plea for former employees of the bankrupt energy company to defy a "wave of terror" by federal prosecutors and help him battle criminal charges.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/13/business/main1124214.shtml

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Good information, and according to it I would not classify environmentalists as using weapons "for the primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population in relation to some political or quasi-political objective and undertaken with an intended audience." I am far more afraid of a lone maniac shooting everyone in a McDonalds than I am environmentalists.

I guess this is my fault for keeping myself honest by including definitions that don't entirely correspond with the definition I have been using but if you take a look more than one of the definitions I quoted and were discussed in the links included references to not only the civilian population in general but "groups" and "persons" aswell. While you may not care what they do the persons who work at and own the sites that they bomb and set fire to may well be rather uneasy with what happened. More than one also cites attempts at coercion or forcing a state group or persons to conform to their aims or demands aside from just the general attempt at inciting fear.

Despite some commonalities, I will continue to see differences--sometimes huge differences. For example, it angers me that Bush refers to insurgents as terrorists. The two are very different, and we know referring to insurgents as "terrorists" is propaganda.

Who Bush does or does not refer to as "terrorists" and what ever reasoning he has for doing so has no bearing on the actual definition of the term. Why would you give Bush or any other such person the power of influencing the legitimacy of any particular term. Arguing that the way any such person uses a term and their reasoning for doing so effects it's legitimacy is inane. You are discussing with me whether or not it is appropriate so please refer to my definitions and usage and the definitions I have sourced instead of others whom I do not endorse or agree with please. I'm tired of people side stepping my argument.
Also if you read the first link in my last post it seems that UN members agree that regardless of the nature of the organization (insurgent, state, guerilla, what have you) it's modus is what should be considered to determine if they are guilty of "terrorism" by international law. Do you not agree with the way the UN seems to be leaning with it's own definitions?

And still yet in other incidents there is no consistency. Individual(s) who bomb abortion clinics fit the description of terrorists far more than environmentalists, but are not referred to as terrorists.

Unfortunately I can't read this because of the internet filter here at work but the head line on google reads...
Anti-Abortion Escapee Joins bin Laden on FBI List
This might be the same thing but I can read it...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_200205/ai_n9020463
This links refers to several forms of "Domestic Terrorism" emphasizing "right-wing terrorism"...
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/WaronTerrorism/terrorism01.htm
The FBI aparently has classified abortion clinic bombings as "terrorism"...

On the domestic front, despite hundreds of violent attacks against abortion clinics by anti-abortion groups since the late 1970s, the FBI did not classify such violence as terrorism until the mid-1990s
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Jenkins1103.htm

These are just the some of the first few references I have found on Google.

It should be apparent that the term "terrorist" is being selectively applied to environmentalists for propaganda purposes. If you choose to be naive, suit yourself.

I think that certain people such as Bush&Co are selectively not referring to certain types of terrorism as such, or simply ignoring them, due to their political alignments and hypocracy. If not being a hypocrite means I'm naive then I'd rather be naive thanks.



You've yet to explain to me what you think "eco-terrorists" should be charged with if not "terrorism".

 

[Skyhunter]

I didn't say they were equivalent. In response to rachmaninoff, I said...

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.

And now you agree.

They are related, but they are not the same. It is factually wrong to say they are equivalent.

But before you said...

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

When you continue to speak in generalizations and argue that it isn't worth the FBI's time to investigate this stuff, you make it sound like you condone such actions.

I did not say it was not worth the FBI's time, I said it I don't believe it should be their #1 issue.

If your entire point were in the usage of the word terrorism, all the rest would be moot - but you are making statements sympathetic to the cause that these acts are being comitted to further. That makes it difficult to reconcile your statement that you don't condone these actions with your support for the cause and your belief that these actions don't warrent such treatment by the FBI.

My point is that the threat posed by 'ecoterrorists' is being exaggerated by the FBI. As for the word ecoterrorist, my point is that it is being used in such a way as to characterize environmentalists as terrorists.

That's wrong: http://www.disastercenter.com/birmingh.htm
A cursory read of that and a few other sites implies that the FBI used to not call any domestic act terrorism. But I'm not certain. Either way, abortion clinic bombings are terrorism.

Alright let's call them "Pro-Life Terrorists"
From the article:

MALICIOUSLY DAMAGED, BY MEANS OF AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICE, BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH RESULTED IN DEATH AND INJURY

Here we have a political movement that is killing people, yet the FBI does not consider them to be as great a threat as a political movement that for the most part, goes out of their way to avoid hurting people.

Interesting perspective, but that is no more valid than saying 9/11 was purely an economic attack. Any terrorist attack is going to cost money, but that isn't why these attacks are carried out. Tree spiking is done for the purpose of scaring people to stop them from cutting down trees.

Is that so?
http://ragette.org/treespike/enter.htm

Tree spiking helps ensure the woods/trees that you spike will not be cut for lumber/pulp and that the forest will move towards (or remain in) a climax, old growth state. The spike can damage both the value of the wood and the equipment used to 'harvest' and process the tree.

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

Some tree spikers tend to mark the spiked trees, ostensibly to deter the harvesting of the spiked trees. Some sawmill operators check trees with metal detectors prior to milling. In turn, Foreman advocated the use of ceramic spikes which would be impossible for the metal detectors to register.

While Foreman claimed that injury to humans was an unlikely consequence of tree-spiking if the spiking was made known to authorities or logging companies, the tactic was condemned not only by the companies themselves, but by labor interests and, eventually, other members of Earth First!.

In 1987, Californian mill worker George Alexander was seriously injured when the bandsaw he was operating was shattered by a tree spike. While both the County sheriff and Alexander's employers, Louisiana-Pacific, blamed environmentalists for the spiking, when Earth First! activist Judi Bari obtained the sheriff's files on the incident some years later, she discovered that one of the suspects for the spiking was Bill Ervin, a 50 year old property-owner, unconnected with Earth First. While Ervin freely admitted spiking trees on his own land to prevent Louisiana-Pacific from taking timber on his side of the property line, he was never charged with spiking the tree that injured Alexander.

Tree spiking is the fact. You supported your argument with less than all the facts, ie comparing arson to painting cars, and leaving out the other forms of terrorism that ecoterrorists commit. That's kinda like arguing that the KKK is ok because they are a Christian organization (they are) and leaving out the fact that they also commit crimes. Argument via omission.
I simply brought up a fact that you have ignored because it doesn't fit your argument. It is not ad hominem to point out that an argument based on speculation is not logically valid.

I wasn't writing an essay, you brought up tree spiking and exaggerated the effects. Like you tend to do with all your arguments, like comparing my statement that spiking a tree to save it is like arguing that 9/11 was just a purely economic attack. Not only is it factually wrong, but they are not even related.

edit: a few other points that you ignored (that you called ad hominem?)

This is what I called ad hominem;

Closing you eyes, singing lalalalalalalala, and being willfully ignorant isn't going to change that.

-You did not address the definition issue - the fact that a threat alone can be terrorism.

It has already been discussed here how the word and it's definition is very broad. And the definition is not really central to my point, which is the exaggeration of the threat.

-You did not address the question of whether changing the word the FBI uses would make investigating/fighting these acts not worth the FBI's time.

Of course the FBI should investigate. But with limited resources, should it be devoting such a disproportionate amount of it resources to non personal injury crimes?

 

[Skyhunter]

IYou've yet to explain to me what you think "eco-terrorists" should be charged with if not "terrorism".

How about Arson, vandalism, trespassing, transporting hazardous materials, etc. Classifying them as terrorist gives the government sweeping new powers to go after protesters.
With the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act II, they don't need to be charged, just suspected, and they can be held indefinitely. At least that is my reading of it.

http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html

Further expands the reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism so that organizations engaged in civil disobedience are at risk of government wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) asset seizure (secs. 428, 428), and their supporters could even risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501);

http://www.poptel.org.uk/statewatch/news/2003/feb/patriot2draft.html

The broader the definition the more people and organizations will fall under it.

Have you checked to see if you are in the pentagons database?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DODAntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker.pdf

[edit]

A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The Quaker religion strictly prohibits violence. Pacifism is synonymous with being a Quaker.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How about Arson, vandalism, trespassing, transporting hazardous materials, etc. Classifying them as terrorist gives the government sweeping new powers to go after protesters.
With the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act II, they don't need to be charged, just suspected, and they can be held indefinitely. At least that is my reading of it.

As I've already pointed out there are laws and classifications for crimes other than "terrorism" referring to things such as gang activity, organized crime, and hate crimes. These are added to charges like arson, vandalism, and the like to properly reflect the nature and motive of the particular incident. If you do not think that such activities that fall under the general legal definition of "terrorism" should be called "terrorism" then what should they be called? If you do not agree that such an addition to the charge to properly reflect motive should axist then would you support getting rid of such added charges as "hate crime" aswell?
Secondly I have already expressed that I do not support the idea of protesters being charged with "terrorism" unless they fall under the definitions I have been using in which case they wouldn't just be protesters. Further I do not endorse the suspension of habius corpus which the PATRIOT Act does. Just because I do not agree with the manner in which people charged with terrorism are being handled does not mean that I will disagree with the way in which they are being charged.
You have a problem with people being executed I believe.
Do you not want people being charged with murder simply because you don't want them to possibly be executed? Or do you think it makes more sense to fight against the practice of execution?

 

[SOS2008]

Who Bush does or does not refer to as "terrorists" and what ever reasoning he has for doing so has no bearing on the actual definition of the term. Why would you give Bush or any other such person the power of influencing the legitimacy of any particular term. Arguing that the way any such person uses a term and their reasoning for doing so effects it's legitimacy is inane. You are discussing with me whether or not it is appropriate so please refer to my definitions and usage and the definitions I have sourced instead of others whom I do not endorse or agree with please. I'm tired of people side stepping my argument.

Also if you read the first link in my last post it seems that UN members agree that regardless of the nature of the organization (insurgent, state, guerilla, what have you) it's modus is what should be considered to determine if they are guilty of "terrorism" by international law. Do you not agree with the way the UN seems to be leaning with it's own definitions?
Unfortunately I can't read this because of the internet filter here at work but the head line on google reads...
Anti-Abortion Escapee Joins bin Laden on FBI List
This might be the same thing but I can read it...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_200205/ai_n9020463
This links refers to several forms of "Domestic Terrorism" emphasizing "right-wing terrorism"...
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/WaronTerrorism/terrorism01.htm
The FBI aparently has classified abortion clinic bombings as "terrorism"...
These are just the some of the first few references I have found on Google.

I think that certain people such as Bush&Co are selectively not referring to certain types of terrorism as such, or simply ignoring them, due to their political alignments and hypocracy. If not being a hypocrite means I'm naive then I'd rather be naive thanks.
You've yet to explain to me what you think "eco-terrorists" should be charged with if not "terrorism".

Skyhunter has already answered many of your questions nicely (thank you Skyhunter). I refer to Bush to illustrate the misuse of the term terrorism. And since he is the president (unfortunately) of the most powerful nation in the world (though not as powerful as it was before he was elected), it does matter how he uses the term--unlike you or me.

In regard to the UN, you make a distinction that I made earlier, which is that of international law versus domestic law. I feel this is one reason for different terms. But to answer your question directly, these definitions mean little to me. As a member of the civilian population, which do you fear most? Being killed/injured in a terrorist attack or global warming? Terrorism in general is pretty far down on my list of worries, but for many Americans fear mongering with the term "terrorism" has provided an effective distraction from real problems (like global warming).

As for those who bomb abortion clinics, a term such as "pro-life terrorists" probably does not exist because those in the medical community who may be affected don't have the same marketing/lobbying power as large corporations (e.g., that currently want to buy public land cheap to make big profits from mining). Ultimately, for both pro-life or environmental protestors, the same concern for civil liberties exist (as Skyhunter points out in regard to the Patriot Act--which has just been renewed by the House. ).

 

[edward]

How about Arson, vandalism, trespassing, transporting hazardous materials, etc. Classifying them as terrorist gives the government sweeping new powers to go after protesters.
With the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act II, they don't need to be charged, just suspected, and they can be held indefinitely. At least that is my reading of it.
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html
http://www.poptel.org.uk/statewatch/news/2003/feb/patriot2draft.html
The broader the definition the more people and organizations will fall under it.
Have you checked to see if you are in the pentagons database?
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DODAntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker.pdf
[edit]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
The Quaker religion strictly prohibits violence. Pacifism is synonymous with being a Quaker.

And the military tracking of protestors is also nationwide, the following describes what the California National Guard is doing:

SACRAMENTO - Three decades after aggressive military spying on Americans created a national furor, California's National Guard has quietly set up a special intelligence unit that has been given ''broad authority'' to monitor, analyze and distribute information on potential terrorist threats, the Mercury News has learned.
Known as the Information Synchronization, Knowledge Management and Intelligence Fusion program, the project is part of an expanding nationwide effort to better integrate military intelligence into global anti-terrorism initiatives.
Although Guard officials said the new unit would not collect information on American citizens, top National Guard officials have already been involved in tracking at least one recent Mother's Day anti-war rally organized by families of slain American soldiers, according to e-mails obtained by the Mercury News.

Shades of tricky Dicky Nixon, our cup of paranoia overfloweth.

 

[edward]

Regarding eco terrorism , as far as I can determine ,it does not exist within the CFR (United States Code of Federal Regulations). It is included in domestic terrorism in general laws. Which means that as I have stated before the eco people are stuffed into the same, one size fits all monkey suit of laws, that apply to domestic terrorism.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html

A big change came along with the Patriot Act when (B) intentional, became (B) appear to be intentional. And subsection (i) was added . These changes are critical because "Intention" is a major factor in any crime and must be proven in court. Now only the appearance of intention needs to be present. It is also difficult for a jury to
rationalize exactly what a civilian population is.

This is very important especially in cases of eco vandalism because a prosecutor can easily convince a jury of "appearance of intention". A person's presence at a certain location can establish that, even if the person only was a bystander.

On the other hand defense attorneys are complaining because it is difficult to dis- prove appearance of intention.

Regardless it is all a big gum ball of hyper paranoia and political favors for the elite that will do nothing to protect this country from real terrorists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Skyhunter has already answered many of your questions nicely (thank you Skyhunter).

No, he has only rehashed all of the things I have already responded to. Responses which I have not received any feed back on except for references that have nothing to do what what I am arguing. You seem to be ignoring everything I say while putting up the apearence that you are having a discussion with me quite artfully.

I refer to Bush to illustrate the misuse of the term terrorism. And since he is the president (unfortunately) of the most powerful nation in the world (though not as powerful as it was before he was elected), it does matter how he uses the term--unlike you or me.

I'm sorry but I was under the distinct impression that I was discussing the appropriateness of this term based on my definitions and those of particular sources that I respect and agree with (perhaps I am unimportant but is the UN and british law unimportant as well?). If you think that I am misusing the term or you would like to question the appropriateness of the definitions I have cited then by all means give me that argument (which I have been waiting and asking for) instead of disrespecting me by ignoring and glossing over my thoughts and sidestepping my points to talk about your dislike for Bush. If you simply have no interest in discussing this with me please let me know in a polite fashion. Thank you.

In regard to the UN, you make a distinction that I made earlier, which is that of international law versus domestic law.

Obviously the UN is not concerned with our domestic laws and only with international law since they are an international body of government. It is up to any individual nation to make their own laws in regards to "domestic terrorism" since the UN will not be having anything to do with it.

But to answer your question directly, these definitions mean little to me. As a member of the civilian population, which do you fear most? Being killed/injured in a terrorist attack or global warming? Terrorism in general is pretty far down on my list of worries, but for many Americans fear mongering with the term "terrorism" has provided an effective distraction from real problems (like global warming).

I'm sorry but I don't see how asking me a question to distract from mine and pontificate on "fear mongering" yet again answers my question at all. I should look back to make sure but I really don't see where you have given me a direct answer to any of my questions at all what so ever.
I'm sure that such things as petty theft and and minor traffic violations are pretty low on your list of worries as well but these things are defined in law books somewhere so that law enforcment agencies can do their jobs. This thread is about whether or not the term terrorism is appropriate for a particular sort of crime and the things that the FBI are doing in regards to that. If these things are well below being worthy of your attention then why are you pretending to have this discussion with me?

As for those who bomb abortion clinics, a term such as "pro-life terrorists" probably does not exist because those in the medical community who may be affected don't have the same marketing/lobbying power as large corporations (e.g., that currently want to buy public land cheap to make big profits from mining). Ultimately, for both pro-life or environmental protestors, the same concern for civil liberties exist (as Skyhunter points out in regard to the Patriot Act--which has just been renewed by the House. ).

This is where I really begin to wonder if you are paying that much attention at all to the discussion you are pretending to have with me. Did you read any of those links I provided? Do you want more? Did you not see that the FBI classifies the bombing of abortion clinics as a terrorist act? Are you paying any attention at all to any of the points I am making here?!


I like you SOS and I think you are an intelligent woman. I think that you are far more intelligent then the show you have put on here. I would like the respect of being treated to that intelligence when you discuss something with me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is included in domestic terrorism in general laws. Which means that as I have stated before the eco people are stuffed into the same, one size fits all monkey suit of laws, that apply to domestic terrorism.

It's also a good idea to realize that when they are charged they will be charged with terrorist acts as an addition to the charges. That is to say that someone who murders people in the process of their act of terrorism is going to be receiving the punishment for commiting murder with what ever extra penalties attached for it having been in the progress of an act of terrorism. If a person is charged with a terrorist act of arson they will not receive the same penalties as someone who murdered while in the same circumstances. The way you say "stuffed into the same, one size fits all monkey suit of laws, that apply to domestic terrorism" you'd think that no matter whether you sent an envelope of white powder in the mail or killed a dozen people with a bomb you're going to receive the same penalties.
The PATRIOT Act may bring in all sorts of other issues aside from the actual penalties one receives for the crime they commit but this has to do with the suspension of habius corpus and other such things that hold up the process of charges and sentencing. In the case of the PATRIOT Act it would be rather disgusting for someone to just complain that it's not right that eco-terrorists should have to deal with it's consequences. It's wrong that ANYONE has to deal with it's consequences regardless of the crimes they have commited.

 

[Skyhunter]

As I've already pointed out there are laws and classifications for crimes other than "terrorism" referring to things such as gang activity, organized crime, and hate crimes. These are added to charges like arson, vandalism, and the like to properly reflect the nature and motive of the particular incident. If you do not think that such activities that fall under the general legal definition of "terrorism" should be called "terrorism" then what should they be called? If you do not agree that such an addition to the charge to properly reflect motive should axist then would you support getting rid of such added charges as "hate crime" aswell?

Since these groups are not targeting people I do not believe they should be charged with terrorism. Whether or not it is legal to do so is not the point.

The term ecoterrorist is not a legal term, it is a propaganda term meant to associate environmental activists with real terrorists that do target people. Like anti-abortionists who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. When it was just Rush Limbaugh and his 20 million ditto-heads it was bad enough. Now the FBI is has declared 'ecoterrorists the #1 domestic threat without providing any real evidence to support the contention. I believe this is another step by corporatists to stifle any opposition to their access to the worlds resources.

 

[SOS2008]

I like you SOS and I think you are an intelligent woman. I think that you are far more intelligent then the show you have put on here. I would like the respect of being treated to that intelligence when you discuss something with me.

Thank you for the compliment (I like you too ). I have answered your question, which was that definitions don't mean much to me. I am more interested in debating the effects and direction of definitions (the bigger picture).

Other than that, I feel members (I'm speaking in general here) often just don't like answers provided so continue to demand answers. Other members are not obligated to respond at all, and may not because the volley is consuming a lot of time and effort with nothing being accomplished.

 

[edward]

It's also a good idea to realize that when they are charged they will be charged with terrorist acts as an addition to the charges. That is to say that someone who murders people in the process of their act of terrorism is going to be receiving the punishment for commiting murder with what ever extra penalties attached for it having been in the progress of an act of terrorism.

This has been my point all along.

You seem to be hung up on murders and violent acts against people. But even so, as I stated before, those people should get whatever punishment the laws subscribe. But I can never agreee with applying the "terrorist" criminal sentence to a young person who has dented a freaking front loader.

A previous: up to one year, vandalism sentence is now: up to six years in prison. A twenty year sentence is now life imprisonment.

But the majority of the eco people are not violent and they are a separate group entirely from the right wing extremists. People like Rudolph and McVeigh, have predominantly been the perpretators of violent true terrorist acts.

Eco protestors tend to commit acts of a vandalism nature. Many of them are young. Throwing them into the same bag with people like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh, strictly at the behest of special interests, is an abomination of American justice.

 

[Informal Logic]

I guess this is my fault for keeping myself honest by including definitions that don't entirely correspond with the definition I have been using but if you take a look more than one of the definitions I quoted and were discussed in the links included references to not only the civilian population in general but "groups" and "persons" as well.

Then we agree you or I may not completely agree with anyone definition, and is that not the problem? The portion I quoted is my perception of terrorism, and it is not how I would describe envrionmentalists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you for the compliment (I like you too ). I have answered your question, which was that definitions don't mean much to me. I am more interested in debating the effects and direction of definitions (the bigger picture).

I'm calmer now.
This is the thing. More than one person, including you, has stated that you do not believe that it is legitimate to refer to certain people as terrorists. This is what I have taken issue with and what I have been trying to discuss. If you don't want to discuss that then you shouldn't have said it and no you don't have to respond to any question I have asked but it is only polite and proper form in such a discussion that your replies to what I say are in regards to what I am saying.
I think that people who bomb and set fire to things as a form of political protest should be charged as terrorists (regardless of affiliation or ideology). If you don't agree then please explain why(and ofcourse you don't have to answer if you don't want to). If you think that only those who target persons should be considered terrorists then please explain why. Ect.
Unless you would like to explain to me the virtue in a court of hypocracy, bias, or preference the ideology of the criminal (and hence the usage of terms as propoganda against certain groups) is completely irrelevant to my questions.

consuming a lot of time and effort with nothing being accomplished.

The discussions on this political forum are really just a bunch of mental masturbation. All we accomplish here is enlightening one another about our perspectives, when people do not answer each others questions and do not respond to what each other are saying we're not even accomplishing that.

Since these groups are not targeting people I do not believe they should be charged with terrorism. Whether or not it is legal to do so is not the point.

I've asked a couple times already but why is it necessary to target people in order for something to be considered terrorism? You and others have asserted it but I have not read an argument so far as to why that should be the case. I could take a que from you and respond "Well if they kill people then they are murderers. There's no need to call them terrorists. There's no need to call anyone terrorists. They're just murderers, arsonists, and bombers. We have laws that cover this already. Calling them terrorists is just a bunch of propaganda."
Would you advocate not calling anyone terrorists? Do you think that there would be a problem in this due to a lack of charging people appropriately for the nature of their crimes? Should we repeal all laws that adjust penalties and not charge people with being involved in gang activities, organized crime, or hate crimes either?

The term ecoterrorist is not a legal term, it is a propaganda term meant to associate environmental activists with real terrorists that do target people. Like anti-abortionists who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. When it was just Rush Limbaugh and his 20 million ditto-heads it was bad enough. Now the FBI is has declared 'ecoterrorists the #1 domestic threat without providing any real evidence to support the contention. I believe this is another step by corporatists to stifle any opposition to their access to the worlds resources.

As I've already stated I don't care what politicians say. All I care about are what the crimes were that were commited by the perpetrators. If they bomb a building to make a political statement then I consider them terrorists. If they kill people in the process then they are murderers too.
As far as the FBI goes it seems that the particular individual who went before the Senate was basing his assertion off of numbers of incidents and the overall price tag for the damages done. There also does not seem to be a consensus even among the FBI on the matter. You're talking about one particular man and his campaign. If you take a look you'll see that Osama Bin Laden is still on the top ten along with an anti-abortion terrorist. I don't believe any tree hugging hippies are on there whether they are the kind that throw molotov cocktails or not. The FBI also considers rightwing terrorists and anti-abortion terrorists to be big threats. They have been giving these sorts of groups more and more attention as well. People blowing up abortion clinics, university labs, government facilities, ect all need to be investigated and brought to justice regardless of affiliation don't you think? If certain sorts of targets are being hit more frequently then the FBI should be paying more attention to those sorts of targets then don't you think?

But I can never agreee with applying the "terrorist" criminal sentence to a young person who has dented a freaking front loader.

And niether would I. I've already made this abundently clear. Why do you keep bringing it up?

A previous: up to one year, vandalism sentence is now: up to six years in prison. A twenty year sentence is now life imprisonment.

"Up to" being the operative words here I think. There is also such thing as parole. The man who murdered my uncle in cold blood was up for parole after less than ten years. I doubt there are any judges that will be putting an "eco-tagger"() away on "terrorist" charges let alone for a whole six year sentence and even if the person did do something bad enough to be subjected to such wrath they would likely be up for parole after a year or two.

But the majority of the eco people are not violent and they are a separate group entirely from the right wing extremists. People like Rudolph and McVeigh, have predominantly been the perpretators of violent true terrorist acts.
Eco protestors tend to commit acts of a vandalism nature. Many of them are young. Throwing them into the same bag with people like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh, strictly at the behest of special interests, is an abomination of American justice.

I'm not talking about people who are non-violent, again this is something I thought I had made clear. I'm Talking About People Who Blow S*** UP and Set S*** ON FIRE! Get it now?
Now tell me please. What constitutes "true terrorism"? If in your opinion it means actual people are targeted then please refer back to the questions I posed Skyhunter?

Then we agree you or I may not completely agree with anyone definition, and is that not the problem? The portion I quoted is my perception of terrorism, and it is not how I would describe envrionmentalists.

Why does your perception of terrorism only include incidents that create wide spread fear among the general populace as a whole and not include specified target groups? And why not include those incidents that are not so much for the purpose of spreading fear but of coercing a group to conform with the "terrorist's" aims/demands? Bombing abortion clinics is supposed to spread fear among, and more importantly coerce, a certain group of people. Would you not classify this as terrorism?



Also, just incase it is necessary, I will repeat myself. I am not referring to "environmentalists" but rather "People who blow s*** up" regardless of whether they are environmentalists, christians, anarchists, I don't care. I wouldn't call tree spiking "terrorism" unless it is done in such a way as to insure that it will do damage to machinery and possibly injure the workers. I wouldn't call "eco-tagging" terrorism either. Throwing a rock at a protest... not terrorism in my book.
Now I hope that we are all clear on the fact that when I refer to "eco-terrorists" I am meaning people who blow s*** up and set s*** on fire and the like and am not a dittohead and do not share their views that all "environmentalist wackos" are "terrorists" ok? Thanks.

 

[Informal Logic]

Why does your perception of terrorism only include incidents that create wide spread fear among the general populace as a whole and not include specified target groups? And why not include those incidents that are not so much for the purpose of spreading fear but of coercing a group to conform with the "terrorist's" aims/demands? Bombing abortion clinics is supposed to spread fear among, and more importantly coerce, a certain group of people. Would you not classify this as terrorism?

Also, just incase it is necessary, I will repeat myself. I am not referring to "environmentalists" but rather "People who blow s*** up" regardless of whether they are environmentalists, christians, anarchists, I don't care. I wouldn't call tree spiking "terrorism" unless it is done in such a way as to insure that it will do damage to machinery and possibly injure the workers. I wouldn't call "eco-tagging" terrorism either. Throwing a rock at a protest... not terrorism in my book.

Now I hope that we are all clear on the fact that when I refer to "eco-terrorists" I am meaning people who blow s*** up and set s*** on fire and the like and am not a dittohead and do not share their views that all "environmentalist wackos" are "terrorists" ok? Thanks.

Because as others and I have stated, that kind of definition for terrorism is too broad. For example, “people who blow s*** up and set s*** on fire" could apply to the mob, gangs, or even juvenile delinquents, protestors, and so forth. In the case of environmentalists, the term is being used for individuals who do not even fit these criteria. If you do not want to agree that the term is too broad and therefore susceptible to misuse, than we should just agree to disagree.

 

[Skyhunter]

I've asked a couple times already but why is it necessary to target people in order for something to be considered terrorism? You and others have asserted it but I have not read an argument so far as to why that should be the case. I could take a que from you and respond "Well if they kill people then they are murderers. There's no need to call them terrorists. There's no need to call anyone terrorists. They're just murderers, arsonists, and bombers. We have laws that cover this already. Calling them terrorists is just a bunch of propaganda."

Terrorism, by it's name means to terrorize people. You cannot terrorize things. ELF and ALF are primarily attacking the bottom line of corporations. I do not agree with their tactics, but since they are not harming people I don't think they should be in the same category as those who do target people. According to an as of yet unsubstantiated statement by the FBI, there have been 1200 incidents of "eco terrorism" and not one person was harmed. With a track record like this I would have to conclude that they definitely are not targeting people. IMO they are trying to stop practices that they deem to be hurting the environment and other living beings, by increasing the cost of continuing these practices. Spray painting SUVs, Spiking trees, blowing up labs where animal testing is being performed, etc.

I prefer the actions of PETA members who trespass to film what goes on in factory farms, they are still breaking the law, however it is justified by enlightening people to the suffering that goes into every chicken nugget. They are putting only themselves at risk for a cause that they believe in.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Terrorism, by it's name means to terrorize people. You cannot terrorize things. ELF and ALF are primarily attacking the bottom line of corporations. I do not agree with their tactics, but since they are not harming people I don't think they should be in the same category as those who do target people. According to an as of yet unsubstantiated statement by the FBI, there have been 1200 incidents of "eco terrorism" and not one person was harmed. With a track record like this I would have to conclude that they definitely are not targeting people. IMO they are trying to stop practices that they deem to be hurting the environment and other living beings, by increasing the cost of continuing these practices. Spray painting SUVs, Spiking trees, blowing up labs where animal testing is being performed, etc.

I already have agreed that there is a difference. The way people are charged and sentenced should, and I believe does, reflect this difference in that people who target persons are also charged with things such as murder, attempted murder, assault, ect. The people who do not target people are not going to be charged with these things. They will only be charged with their crimes with an addendum to the charges and penalties to reflect that the crimes they commited were an act of terror.

ALF and ELF have also been known to attack Universities. They don't just go after corporations. And even if they are going after Corporations, that shouldn't matter. A person is still charged with murder if they kill a child molester or with arson if they burn down the child molester's house. Just because the target of the violence, in what ever form, may be vile and disgusting, unethical, or even in the progress of a crime themselves does not mean they are or should be any less protected by the law. Such considerations lead to hypocracy and bias and are no longer justice.

"Terrorism, by it's name means to terrorize people. You cannot terrorize things"
There are people who own the things that are being fire bombed and work or are students at the locations that are fire bombed. People can get frightened rather easily. It doesn't matter if someone tells you that the people who bombed your place of work do not kill people you're more than likely still going to be uneasy going back there. I've had my workplace receive bomb threats before. They were just prank calls and I knew they were just prank calls but they still succeeded in putting me on edge and multiple of my co-workers went home because they were too frightened to stay at work. Imagine how they would have felt if someone had blown up part of our work place. You don't have to kill people to scare them and/or coerce them. So please explain to me why you think that people must be targeted for an act to be considered terrorism considering that people can be terrorised without ever being targeted directly or even actually being subjected to real violence.

 

[Skyhunter]

So please explain to me why you think that people must be targeted for an act to be considered terrorism considering that people can be terrorised without ever being targeted directly or even actually being subjected to real violence.

Just because someone is afraid doesn't necessarily mean they are being terrorized. My mother is afraid of caterpillars, and gets hysterical if one gets on her. I wouldn't call a caterpillar a terrorist though.

If their goal is not to cause indescriminate terror, why should their actions be considered terrorism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If their goal is not to cause indescriminate terror, why should their actions be considered terrorism.

Ok... I have outlined a definition of terrorism, relatively basic as it may be, and cited several other definitions from sources whom deal with the law and legal definitions which for the most part agree with my definition. The general consensus seems to define "terrorism" as the use of violence on the civilian population to promote a political/ideological cause through fear and coercion. Most seem to include the targeting of cetain groups or subsections of persons instead of just the general population. Some include violence towards property and not just violence inflicted on a person and those that do not mention property are not very specific as to what constitutes violence towards persons which could include violence towards their property and facilities. Ofcourse that last part is unclear like I said and is what seems to be the main matter of contention here.
So I'm asking you please to make an argument on thsi matter. Let me know if you have any problems with the definitions I have cited. If so let me know what you have a problem with and give me your personal definition please and your reasoning as to why this should be the legally accepted definition.

 

[Skyhunter]

Ok... I have outlined a definition of terrorism, relatively basic as it may be, and cited several other definitions from sources whom deal with the law and legal definitions which for the most part agree with my definition. The general consensus seems to define "terrorism" as the use of violence on the civilian population to promote a political/ideological cause through fear and coercion. Most seem to include the targeting of cetain groups or subsections of persons instead of just the general population. Some include violence towards property and not just violence inflicted on a person and those that do not mention property are not very specific as to what constitutes violence towards persons which could include violence towards their property and facilities. Ofcourse that last part is unclear like I said and is what seems to be the main matter of contention here.
So I'm asking you please to make an argument on thsi matter. Let me know if you have any problems with the definitions I have cited. If so let me know what you have a problem with and give me your personal definition please and your reasoning as to why this should be the legally accepted definition.

I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "eco terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target labs where animals are the subjects of experiments in order to stop the experiments. They target property of corporations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism.

If the goal is not to terrorize why should they be labeled terrorists?

Why should they face terrorism charges when tried?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "eco terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target labs where animals are the subjects of experiments in order to stop the experiments. They target property of corporations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism.
If the goal is not to terrorize why should they be labeled terrorists?
Why should they face terrorism charges when tried?

"I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "Anti-Abortion terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target clinics where people are the subjects of abortions in order to stop the abortions. They target property of organizations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism."
To say that eco-terrorists should be tried differently because they target corporations that they feel are commiting crimes against nature, and you presumably agree with them, is pure hypocracy.
Would you agree with your statement above which I have adjusted to what people probably used to say about the "anti-abortion terrorists"?
If you think that because certain of them target people and threaten people directly makes a difference then please explain to me why this makes a difference as to whether or not something is terrorism.
When an "eco-terrorist" bombs a lab or factory or some such thing they are attempting to coerce the owners into stopping what they are doing and coercing workers into leaving their jobs. These are the exact same aims and intentions of the individuals that bomb abortion clinics. Why should they be treated differently? Or do you think that neither should be charged with terrorism, and why?

 

[Skyhunter]

"I have no problem with the definition. It does not apply to the so called "Anti-Abortion terrorists". They are not using fear and coercion. They target clinics where people are the subjects of abortions in order to stop the abortions. They target property of organizations that they believe are committing crimes against man and nature. They should be punished when caught, but not for terrorism."
To say that eco-terrorists should be tried differently because they target corporations that they feel are commiting crimes against nature, and you presumably agree with them, is pure hypocracy.
Would you agree with your statement above which I have adjusted to what people probably used to say about the "anti-abortion terrorists"?
If you think that because certain of them target people and threaten people directly makes a difference then please explain to me why this makes a difference as to whether or not something is terrorism.
When an "eco-terrorist" bombs a lab or factory or some such thing they are attempting to coerce the owners into stopping what they are doing and coercing workers into leaving their jobs. These are the exact same aims and intentions of the individuals that bomb abortion clinics. Why should they be treated differently? Or do you think that neither should be charged with terrorism, and why?

If they were bombing clinics while they were open, in order to scare people away from getting an abortion, or doctors and nurses from performing them, than I would agree that they are terrorizing people and would support the additional charge of terrorism. If however, they only bombed the buildings to render them inoperable, after making sure that they were empty, I would not agree that their actions constitute terrorism.