News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skyhunter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    English
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the definitions and implications of "terrorism," particularly in relation to eco-terrorism. Various dictionary definitions highlight the ambiguity and politicization of the term, suggesting that it is often used pejoratively to describe actions by politically motivated groups. The FBI has labeled eco-terrorists as a significant domestic threat, despite debates over the actual extent and nature of their actions, which often target property rather than individuals. Critics argue that the focus on eco-terrorism serves to undermine legitimate environmental concerns and stifle opposition to corporate interests. Ultimately, the conversation reflects broader issues of semantics and the political motivations behind labeling certain actions as terrorism.
  • #31
edward said:
We don't consider the KKK to be terrorists. They are officially "perpetators of hate crimes."
It is still all in the guise of semantics. People currently called eco terrorists were formerly called protestors. Had there been no 9/11 they would still be called protestors.
The "eco terrorist" term was invented by big business to get the FBI involved. Under our current situation I would rather see the FBI protecting the general public from serious 9/11 type threats, and let the Lumber and building industries hire their own security or make use of local law enforcement.
The terrorists we are currently at war with try, with a great deal of sucess, to frighten entire peoples , even countries, not just the priviledged few. And I seriously doubt that the priveledged few feels coerced or frightened by the eco protestors actions, just pi$$ed that they lost a few bucks which will eventually be covered by insurance.
And yes protests can be violent. And protesting by whatever means is historic. Should we rename the Boston Tea Party, The Terrorist Tea Party? Should those who protested slavery even before the civil war be called terrorists? It all depends on ones point of view.
Eco-terrorists have been labeled as such for quite some time.
And yes the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act. The Sons of Liberty, who perpetrated the Tea Party, are probably the earliest homegrown American terrorist organization and you could easily parallel them with the IRA of Ireland.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Let's clean up the quality of writing here before the mods choose to lock this.

edit: (not intended at TheStatutoryApe, who posted at the same time as myself)
 
  • #33
rachmaninoff said:
Let's clean up the quality of writing here before the mods choose to lock this.

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

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

Nothing is going to be clean, clear cut, and empiricle on a political forum.
Is politcal science an exact science?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
TheStatutoryApe said:
Eco-terrorists have been labeled as such for quite some time.

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


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

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

It is no big deal, the future of the world does not depend on any of the above. But if it makes eveyone happy, sure the 70 year old grandmother who conspires with others and parks her car in front of a bulldozer is a terrorist.
 
  • #35
Edward said:
I can only trace it back to the early 2000's. My point was, the recent use of the word being bandied about is for it's effect more than for it's accuracy to a given situation.

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

It is no big deal, the future of the world does not depend on any of the above. But if it makes eveyone happy, sure the 70 year old grandmother who conspires with others and parks her car in front of a bulldozer is a terrorist.
You haven't looked very hard. I've been hearing it since at least the nineties if not earlier. The term was coined by Ron Arnold who eventually came out with a book called Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature in 1997. He apparently used the term as early as 1986 in an interview with the New Zealand Harold.
Believe it or not the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" has in fact been around since the late seventeen-hundreds. No, the Sons of Liberty were not called "terrorists" at that time because that was before the word came into usage. Note again that the term did not come into usage only just recently and the SOL probably have been called such long ago though not at the time they were active.

Please do not try to say we are agruing about little old ladies protesting something being bulldozed. We are referring to those who vandalize and, more specifically, use arson as there means of "protest". Rush Limbaugh is not the representative of every person who uses the term "eco-terrorist".
 
  • #36
loseyourname said:
Off topic, but I always wondered if that would be the perfect way to get away with murder. Get your victim to come with you to a cliff, push him off, and tell the police he slipped. How would they ever prove otherwise?
Totally off topic:
I would think that the most effective way in pushing a guy over a cliff is to give him a hard shove in the back. The guy ought then to topple over and fall head first down. But in the case of accidental slipping, wouldn't it be more likely that the guy fell with his feet first?

Thus, the manner in which a guy hits the ground might be an indication of whether he was pushed or slipped..
 
  • #37
Skyhunter said:
Arson is a form of vandalism...
No, it isn't. Arson is a felony, vandalism is a misdemeanor and they are separate crimes. Ie, if you commit arson, you are not charged with vandalism.
 
  • #38
edward said:
Nothing is going to be clean, clear cut, and empiricle on a political forum.
Is politcal science an exact science?
No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...
 
  • #39
arildno said:
Totally off topic:
I would think that the most effective way in pushing a guy over a cliff is to give him a hard shove in the back. The guy ought then to topple over and fall head first down.
Seems in that case, they might be able to regain their balance with their feet.
Thus, the manner in which a guy hits the ground might be an indication of whether he was pushed or slipped..
If the cliff has any real height, then as I assume they'd be rotating somewhat it wouldn't make any difference.
(still totally off topic)
 
  • #40
russ_watters said:
No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

And what about this rewrite of history by the statutoryape:

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

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

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

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

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

The FBI currently has much more important things to do other than protect the interests of big business.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Most environmentalists are not terrorists. Violence is not the way to achieve anything even if it's a good thing.
 
  • #42
Skyhunter said:
I hear this term and I wonder, what in the world are they talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Except for perhaps "Any policy of intimidation", and even that is a stretch, since I don't see how spray painting SUV's is intimidating.
Even the most radical eco groups, ELF and ALF have never caused bodily harm to anyone, their actions are always directed toward property. in spite of this the FBI has declared that eco terrorists are the greatest domestic terrorist threat. :confused:
Is this just more of the same movement to stifle and crush any opposition to the corporate acquisition and dispensation of all the worlds resources?
Is there a credible threat from people who rescue puppies?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/n...30a7fb399&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/07/08/kavanagh/index.html?source=daily
I feel that this is a more accurate description of the whole "eco-terrorism" hype.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/9/30/161855/060?source=daily
Back before you began participating in PF, I made the comment that on the spectrum of things (or comparison of extremism) tree-hugging, granola-eating, whale-watching liberals are not as frightening as the right-wing conservative extremists (as in “right of Attila the Hun”), some already mentioned such as the KKK, and which BTW include Islamic jihad terrorists. Come on, we know these groups can’t be defined as left-wing bleeding heart liberals.

The reason our country has verged upon becoming a fascist theocracy is because liberal pacifists do not “take up arms” in loud, aggressive activism. The “in-your-face” Bill O’Reilly’s of the world mentioned in the OP article are to be feared far more, and are the people who espouse this bunch of BS propaganda about liberals, which includes attacks against those in our society who are secular. Ohhhhhh, such a heinous crime it is to be secular…ohhhhh!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
rachmaninoff said:
Ideology does not justifice violence. Never. It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are or how you perceive things - if you've come to the point where you need to blow things up to make your point heard, you lose any moral high ground you might possibly have had.
I've had about enough of all these ideologues pouring in from all sides with terrorism and fear-mongering. They're all condemnable.

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

An example of Eco-Terrorism that is justified:Democratic action is taken to stop the demolishing of a rainforest, which a company wants to use for lumber. The democratic action fails because of capitalist corruption. Destroying the equipment and means to demolish the forest would be a perfectly reasonable response.
 
  • #44
edward said:
And what about this rewrite of history by the statutoryape:

It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.
I really don't know what you mean: no history class I ever took even asked the question of whether or not the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, and the two terms don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. Since throwing tea over the side of a ship is not a straightforward violent crime like arson or tree spiking is, I think such a debate could be interesting, but the answer probably isn't as clear-cut as it is with ecoterrorism.
In recent years the term terrosist has became a household world and it has been applied with a very broad brush. If the term is now going to be applied to all historical events we will need to rewrite everything from the abolition of slavery to the protests of women who wished to have the right to vote.
I agree that the term is often misused, but I don't see how the fact that it is often misused implies that it should be misused.
 
  • #45
Dooga Blackrazor said:
An example of Eco-Terrorism that is justified:Democratic action is taken to stop the demolishing of a rainforest, which a company wants to use for lumber. The democratic action fails because of capitalist corruption. Destroying the equipment and means to demolish the forest would be a perfectly reasonable response.
Could you expand on that, please? You are stating your opinion, but not explaining why (a.) chopping down a forest for wood is wrong and (b.) why even if true that makes destruction of equipment justified to prevent it.
 
  • #46
russ_watters said:
Could you expand on that, please? You are stating your opinion, but not explaining why (a.) chopping down a forest for wood is wrong and (b.) why even if true that makes destruction of equipment justified to prevent it.

Sure,

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

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

A real life situation would have more variables, of course, but I am simply trying to demonstrate that Eco-Terrorists, in destroying property, can be justified.
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
I really don't know what you mean: no history class I ever took even asked the question of whether or not the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, and the two terms don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. Since throwing tea over the side of a ship is not a straightforward violent crime like arson or tree spiking is, I think such a debate could be interesting, but the answer probably isn't as clear-cut as it is with ecoterrorism. I agree that the term is often misused, but I don't see how the fact that it is often misused implies that it should be misused.
In referring to a wide brush, I think he is saying property damage is property damage, and what one person sees as revolutionary (or a "freedom fighter"), another sees as terrorism.

The definition of terrorism has been debated many times in PF. If you want to argue that there are such things as eco-terrorists, then I can argue that the US is a terrorist state. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the term eco-terrorism is ridiculous on the spectrum of violence in the world.
 
  • #48
Edward said:
It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.
Terrorism is a tactic used by a range of groups including even governments. When an organization's modus operandi is primarily terror tactics one will generally refer to them as "terrorists"(note that several people who believe that the Bush administrations primary modus is a form terrorism like to refer to them as such).
The Boston Tea Party was the use of violence (destruction of property) to coerce the British Government. This would generally be considered a terrorist act. A later incarnation of the Sons of Liberty would even call for the assasination of Lincoln, going so far as to make it part of their motto. John Wilkes Booth was a member himself.
So do you think that the IRA and similar organizations were not referred to as Patriots by their people? Do you disagree that they used terrorist tactics as their modus? Do you somehow think that even if an organization uses terrorist tactics that they should not be refer to as such?
Just what exactly constitutes a terrorist in your eyes?

Edward said:
Timothy McVeigh definitely committed a terrorist act, but from a strictly legal point of view, if a 70 year old grandmother tosses a rock at a bulldozer, she has also committed a terrorist act.
You continue to sidestep and mischaracterize our argument. We are not the people who are putting little old ladies in jail for tossing a rock at a protest. We are simply saying that we do not think it is inappropriate to call people who make political statements through bombings, arson, and other manners of large scale property destruction terrorists. How you don't agree with this I have no idea.
 
  • #49
russ_watters said:
No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...
Excuse me, but arson is a form of vandalism. An extreme form that carries a greater legal penalty, but still malicious destruction of property.

vandalism: the willful or malicious destruction or defacement of property

arson:malicious burning to destroy property;

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

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

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

Terrorism is the use of violence to terrorize people.

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

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

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

Do you really believe that the FBI should devote the largest amount of it's resources toward these people?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Dooga Blackrazor said:
A. I should have been more specific. You are to assume chopping down the forest is the incorrect decision, by all logical indications, for the sake of the debate. In short, it is a hypothetical situation where the rainforest clearly needs to be preserved for the good of humanity. A few wealthy capitalist want to make an investment, and they disregard the greater good.
"by all logical indications"? I suspect you'll find quite a bit of general disagreement over whether a specific rainforest needs to be saved. So who gets to decide this matter? You? Me? The courts?
B. If destroying the equipment results in the benefit of humanity, then it is justified.
Setting aside for a moment the basic moral principle that violence is never justified, how does one decide when and how much violence is justified and who gets to decide it? How about shooting those capitalists who bought the forest - wouldn't that be more likely to succeed, since they can always get another buldozer? Is that justified? Why or why not?
 
  • #51
Skyhunter said:
(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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Skyhunter said:
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. :rolleyes:

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/
 
Last edited:
  • #53
TheStatutoryApe said:
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.:rolleyes:


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.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
russ_watters said:
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 
  • #55
Edward said:
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?

Edward said:
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?

Edward said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Skyhunter said:
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?
 
  • #57
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #58
SOS2008 said:
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?
 
  • #59
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Skyhunter said:
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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News What is the impact of terrorism on society?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
News How Did a Sham Marriage Enable Security Breaches at the FBI and CIA?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Eye on Americans - the FBI's Database on YOU
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
10K
News Terrorism is defined as the use of violence
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
News DoD Report on the Fort Hood Shooting & Comparing to Christmas Day Attack
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
10K
News Oklahoma City Case Reopened: Government Sting Gone Wrong?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News The fear of fear itself or not actually that much to fear?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K