So not harming people, but their property is terrorism now?
Freeing enslaved creatures from torture is too?
I am going outside to hug a tree… :smack:
WTF w/usa?
Que?
Just as an fyi, it’s good form in the pit to expand a bit on what your problem is and you get extra points for providing a link to a news article if it’s about a current event.
As for the terrorism question, yes. From Merriam Webster.
Doesn’t say anything about people. It certainly can be, but it’s not necessary.
OK- I am fuming about the use of the word terrorism to describe actions-
A.L.F. and E.L.F. and E.F. use it to describe their own activities-
I would use ‘Sabotage’- because the “machinery” of oppression is damaged, not the people. Are the Humvees that got tourched terrorised?
here is the thing that made me want to pit:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F17F6395B0C728EDDA80894DE404482
ps. sabot- Dutch wooden shoe, thrown into millworks for strike!
Yes, sweet cheeks, terrorists.
Let’s see, there’s arson. Burning houses under construction because the homeowner had the audacity to own property where the bunny huggers decided they shouldn’t. Burning vehicles. Both have the great potential for loss of life, and the EF! assclowns have been damned lucky someone hasn’t died yet.
Spiking trees to keep them from being cut. Again, lucky someone hasn’t been killed.
Vandalism to heavy machinery.
Tree squatting. Someone has died doing that, and it was the lunatic doing it. Too bad, so sad.
Extortion, coercion, destruction of private property, economic loss, all to foster a political goal. Fits the definition of terrorism as I know it.
All the definitions of terrorism I’ve seen include the words: intimidate, coerce and
violence.
The alleged actions of the 11 indictees certainly qualify.
While I may have some empathy for their cause, I cannot and will not condone
violence, of any kind, in defense of those ends.
There are acceptable methods of civil disobedience that can be used w/o endangering
people or destroying property. If these people truly have the courage of their
convictions they will spurn violent act and put themselves out there in the pursuit of
their cause.
Committing covert violent acts is cowardly and reprehensible. These are acts of
vengeance, not of political dissonance.
Not to mention that burning cars is terrible for the environment, perhaps worse than driving the car for its normal lifespan would be. And burning houses can get out of control (if that hasn’t happened already) further dangering the environment, and possibly local wildlife.
Lifetime Environmentalist here:
I have to agree with the anti-bunny huggers, (I prefer the term tree-hugger, if you don’t mind 
)
The acts of some environmental groups does fall into terrorism.
On the other hand when a Group like Green Peace has taken matters into their own hands to stop the direct dumping of toxic chemicals into waterways, is that terrorism or protecting the locals from an abusive corporation?
I tend to side with Green Peace when they forced Ciba Geigy’s acts of extreme pollution and poisoning into the light. This act was however illegal. They stopped up the outflow pipe and blocked trucks going in and out of Ciba Geigy. Their illegal act actually stopped another illegal act that was poisoning a town.
BTW: Ciba Geigy is a European own company that seemed perfectly happy to pollute the US as the European laws provide better protection and oversight to prevent pollution.
Where do you draw the line between Terrorism and protecting?
Of course the Best thing is when a group like Clearwater used a media & public information campaign to bring public pressure on companies like GE that was dumping PCB’s into the Hudson all those many years ago or Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater that got IFF caught with Aerial Photography of Rusty leaking Chemical Barrels, Strange liquids leeching into Sandy Hook Bay and constant air pollution violations. The Strange liquids turns out to be federally regulation dangerous and cancerous chemicals from IFF’s so called waste retainment system.
In both cases, both groups stay 100% within the law and still made a change that cleaned up the public waters.
Jim
To the OP - When the IRA switched away from aiming for maximum civilian casualties, and started giving warnings in order to cause huge economic damage but minimal injury or death (the Docklands & Manchester bombs, for instance), did this cease to be terrorism?
Sabotage seems like the term that should be used.
EcoTerrorism seems more like the destruction of food crops, tainting of water supplies
While I’m not going to object strenuously, “terrorism” is commonly bandied about these days with the definition of “causing or instilling terror”, which implies that it causes other people to be “in terror”. Property destruction alone, IMO, isn’t enough to put people in a state of terror – there needs to be some component of intentionally targetted bodily harm. Yes, I’ll agree that such actions meet the dictionary definition of “coercion through violent action”; however, I also think it’s a bit hyperbolic.
And, since I know how these things go, let me state adamantly – I am not advocating on behalf of the ELF, etc. I find their tactics wrong-headed, counter productive, and potentially (if not actually) dangerous.
Fine, you don’t like the ELF. What about the CLIT?
I hate this. Please tell me you have never taken any OTC or prescription drug, and that you will never need one in the future, okay? In fact, if you do need one, can we make sure that it was never tested on any animal? Unfortunately, this might result in your icky, painful death. That’s okay, right?
Seriously.
I am not in favor of animal torture, but I believe that the testing of drugs on animals is required if we aren’t allowed to experiment on humans.
The funniest bit in 28 Days later was the fact that the plague was released by a bunch of ALFers.
I was in L.A. when there was a story about the ELF torching Hummers. An article I read at the time said that the burning of the vehicles caused several times the amount of harmful pollution than the Hummers would have generated during their operational period.
And then there’s the person who kidnapped a baby penguin from the London Zoo and (apparently) set it free. Way to kill an animal, dude!
What’s the difference between an environmentalist and a developer? A developer wants to build houses in the forest. Environmentalists already have houses in a forest.
It’s about time this type of activity was classed as terrorism and suppressed in the harshest manner possible. I openly applaud any effort to contain the idiots who terrorise the employees and their families at such facilities as Huntingdon Life Sciences.
I’m given to understand that they’re non-violent, being tree-dwellers and all. So, no problems. 
Let’s see what this source has to say about the bunny-defenders:
That’s just a tiny fraction of the incidents collected on that website.
Sure as hell sounds like terrorists to me.
Thankfully, before virtually all biomedical companies are forced out of the country, the UK Government has recognised that such activity cannot continue. MI5 is reportedly infiltrating domestic terrorist networks.
And from the same site, how’s this for “freeing enslaved creatures from torture”: