Cornell poll: 44% of Americans believe that Muslims should not have civil rights.

[JonScribe]

The ecoterrorists apparently are nothing compared to the threat of pissed-off security guards.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Declan

Your right , it is a side track , but one that needs to be traveled.

To bring it back to your OP , what level of law enforcement would you be happy with, in relation to domestic based terrorist cells, of what ever flavor ?

Declan

Whatever doesn’t infringe on the civil rights of innocent people. “Terrorist cells” != “Muslims.”

[Nightime]

@jjimm

Yes. But how about “Irish bars” or “Irish people” in general, though?

There was a prevailing attitude in the 1970s and 80s in the UK towards Irish people in general, during the IRA and INLA bombing campaigns. There’s a line from an Irish rebel song that goes “Being Irish means you’re guilty / So we’re guilty one and all”. The implication of the sentiment to me is that prejudice to the entire group fosters that group’s empathy with the terrorists.

I agree that it should not be extended to the group in general. However, the questions in this particular poll do not allow for such an answer.

For example, one question says:

“Mosques should be closely monitored and
surveilled by U.S. law enforcement agencies.”
Technically, my answer to this would be yes, because I believe it is perfectly valid to monitor any mosque which is under suspicion of being used by terrorists or their supporters.

However, I also do not support literally monitoring every mosque, even those which have no reason to be under suspicion.
The question does not allow for such distinctions, so you can’t draw any conclusions about taking away civil rights from that question.
Now, the first question in the poll is blatant removal of civil rights, and it is indeed frightening that 27% agreed with it.

[jayjay]

May I note that ELF (and ALF, through association (read below)) engage in tree-spiking:

The ELF advocates “monkeywrenching,” a euphemism for acts of sabotage and property destruction against industries and other entities perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. “Monkeywrenching” includes tree spiking, arson, sabotage of logging or construction equipment, and other types of property destruction. Speeches given by Jonathan Paul and Craig Rosebraugh at the 1998 National Animal Rghts conference held at the Uiversity of Oegon, promoted the unity of both the ELF and the ALF movements. The ELF posted information on the ALF website until it began its own website in January 2001, and is listed in the same underground activist publications as the ALF.

From here.

Arson is bad enough, but tree-spiking, besides damaging saws, can cause the saw to backlash and seriously injure or kill the logger. This isn’t an obscure fact. ELF members know this and still spike the trees. I don’t think the “no bodily harm” rule comes into play here.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The cite doesn’t actually say that ELF engages in tree spiking or even advocates it. It says that ELF advocates “monkeywrenching” which can include a wide variety of sabotage. The writer of that quote then tries to include spiking in the laundry list of examples but does not provide a cite that ELF specifically advocates it.

[jayjay]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The cite doesn’t actually say that ELF engages in tree spiking or even advocates it. It says that ELF advocates “monkeywrenching” which can include a wide variety of sabotage. The writer of that quote then tries to include spiking in the laundry list of examples but does not provide a cite that ELF specifically advocates it.

From the cite:

Disaffected environmentalists, in 1980, formed a radical group called “Earth First!” And engaged in a series of protests and civil disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced “tree spiking” (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992, the ELF was founded in Brighton, England by Earth First! Members who refused to abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream Earth First!.

They were Earth First! and became ELF because Earth First! members wanted to go mainstream as an advocacy group rather than a direct-action group. So the people who formed ELF were spiking trees.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So what, That doesn’t constitute a cite that ELF has spiked trees?

[Typo_Negative]

@Diogenes the Cynic

So what, That doesn’t constitute a cite that ELF has spiked trees?

But you would agree that tree spiking would constitute terrorism. It does involve the threat of physical harm, right?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@spooje

But you would agree that tree spiking would constitute terrorism. It does involve the threat of physical harm, right?

It’s borderline.

I also think it’s a pretty tenuous line to then say that if anyone in PeTA has ever given ELF money the PetA is a terrorist group.

[jayjay]

@Diogenes the Cynic

So what, That doesn’t constitute a cite that ELF has spiked trees?

Dio, the people who were spiking trees were ELF. They formed ELF because they didn’t want to give up things like spiking trees when Earth First! went straight.

And I personally don’t see the difference between arson and bodily harm. All it takes is one less-than-perfect body check before lighting the match and suddenly they ARE murderers. Just because one agrees with some of their goals doesn’t mean they get a free pass. I’m sympathetic to the environmental movement as well, but ELF is so obviously a terrorist group that I find it hard to believe that you are contorting the logic so badly just to keep them on the right side of the word.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I think they’re criminals. I don’t support what they do, but I don’t think they’re terrorists and I especially don’t think that PeTA is a terrorist group.

[Squink]

From jayjay’s post:

from link:
…engaged in a series of protests and civil disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced “tree spiking” (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992…

Does anyone happen to have any idea what is meant by a ‘ceramic spike’? Do such things actually exist outside the imagination of wannabe eco-terrorists?
From Wikipedia on Tree Spiking:

a contentious tactic within radical environmentalist circles during the 1980s, after it was advocated by Earth First! co-founder Dave Foreman in his book Ecodefense.

The aim of tree spiking is to dramatically increase the cost of milling logged timber through damage to mill equipment such as band saws. To avoid this, some sawmill operators check trees with metal detectors prior to milling. In turn, Foreman advocated the use of ceramic spikes which quickly become impossible to detect.

Googling on ceramic spike only turns up 206 hits, mostly about golf and football, no ads, and only one lurid tale of ceramic tree spiking:

The truck started on the third try. It stuttered. The brakes were stiff, they groaned and creaked a little. I jammed it in gear and left. The foot long ceramic spike that had caused some of the damage to my right arm and head after my saw hit it rolled around on the passenger’s side floor. I was on a job and spotted a chance to make some extra money with a stand of straight maple, fifty yards off a landing site. Seven thousand dollars covered in bark and leaves. It was coming down. I ran the metal detector over the trees and nothing showed on the meter, so after the crew left, I took a saw to the lead tree in the group. Two things happened at once. The chain snapped and the saw kicked out of the cut with so much force, it broke my arm and slammed into my head, digging deep into my helmet as the chain shot one last revolution through the orange plastic housing, like a deadly silver ribbon, flashing and slicing its way to my bones. My Kevlar pants finally stopped it, but I was on the ground, bleeding.

How would one hammer a foot long piece of baked clay into a tree in the first place. Do you have to drill a hole for the spike, and then slide it in?

Ceramic tree spikes seem to be in the same class of objects as ceramic guns which are undetectable by airport security guards; that class which contains virtually nonexistent objects.

[Squink]

OF COURSE, I missed the link with the Lurid Tale of Ceramic Tree Spiking :smack:

[Marley23]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Terror means using violence against human beings, not SUVs.

Terrorism means using violence or threats of violence to achieve political ends. A group that says “we will break into your labs, or burn your SUVs or homes down” is threatening violence against people who sell, use or do the things they don’t like indirectly, and directly threatening the things they use or build, which means that if you work in a lab or are building one of those developments, you have to worry that much more about being caught in an attack or a fire. ALF is destroying SUVs to stop people from doing things they don’t like.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I disagree. Vandalizing a lab is just vandalism. I’m not saying it isn’t a crime but it isn’t terrorism. It isn’t going to make anyone fear for their lives.

[Marley23]

On an individual basis, you’re probably right. When it’s part of a campaign, I think that’s different. And it certainly has a political agenda. How lab workers feel about it I don’t know. I wouldn’t blame them if they ARE afraid for their lives.

[mhendo]

@Marley23

Terrorism means using violence or threats of violence to achieve political ends.

Sounds like the definition of “war” to me, too (at least in plenty of cases that i can think of).

[Desmostylus]

@mhendo

Sounds like the definition of “war” to me, too (at least in plenty of cases that i can think of).

Marley23’s definition is incomplete, because it omits reference to “noncombatants”. A proper definition is “Terrorism means using violence or threats of violence against noncombatants to achieve political ends.”

Having said that though, it’s worth noting that the term is often misused to refer to attacks on people who quite clearly are combatants, e.g. the 1983 suicude bombings in Beirut, and the frequent references on Fox to “terrorists” attacking US and Iraqi soldiers in Iraq.

[Marley23]

Fair point, Des. By now, unfortunately I don’t think it’s just FOX that calls any attack against American soldiers in Iraq terrorism.

[Desmostylus]

@Marley23

By now, unfortunately I don’t think it’s just FOX that calls any attack against American soldiers in Iraq terrorism.

I guess not. This idiot misuses the term frequently, for example.