# is eco-terrorism really terrorism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2002, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711 "2002-06-30T17:05:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/21 "2002-07-01T02:44:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sterra \* > Old growth forests really should be cut down. Because they are much easier to catch on fire than new growth forests and when you don’t let small fires burn up in them you either have to cut them down or eventually get a fire that burns out of control. Forests have been burning down long before we started “managing” them. It’s a natural part of the cycle of life. At least in a burn the nutrients stay in the system. On top of that I think that there is some room to debate as far as the supposed fire advantages of new growth. Old growth forest is very important to many animals who have lived in the environment for eons. A “forest” full of trees that are all 30 years old is not a forest, its a tree farm. If they’re really terrorists, why wasn’t that label applied before 9/11? On the national level their actions didn’t even raise the public’s eyebrow. Why don’t we have the term “abortion terrorists”? These are people who _mean_ to kill others and inspire fear. Or Timothy McVeigh, I don’t remember anybody calling him a terrorist. I would argue, by body count alone, we should be more worried about Abortion Terrorists, and Right-Wingnut- terrorists than these supposed “eco-terrorists”. Terrorist has just become the latest catch word for demonizing. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/22 "2002-07-01T02:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > The Communist coutries of Europe did incredible damage to their environment. Their pollution was atrocious. This actual experience shows that eliminating the profit motive would be bad for the environment. > > ELF has misguided goals as well as misguided tactics. I don’t think the establishment of global communism is really their goal. I’m sure if there were similarly motivated people in Russia, they would be just as destructive there. The hope is just that investor will simply spend there money elsewhere. I don’t think it will work, I wish they wouldn’t do it, I hope they stop before they kill someone, but I understand their anger. I think that the “eco-terrorist” label could be an excuse to monitor and harass innocents who have political views that are not aligned with the government. The whole terrorist scare has put our rights at risk. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/23 "2002-07-01T02:57:22Z")
> [@](#): > > (Although I would like to get a cite from tomndebb on the several near deaths he mentioned). From the link I already provided: > [@](#): > > In April 1989, the Animal Liberation Front set timed incendiary devices beneath a meat company in Monterey, Calif., perhaps not realizing that butchers started work at 4 a.m. The morning crew smelled smoke and fled. Only one of the firebombs ignited. . . > > One year later, the Earth Night Action Group toppled power lines near Santa Cruz, Calif., a blackout that caused the failure of Rosina Mazzei’s respirator. Paramedics took hours to revive Mazzei, who suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease. > > Horton, the night watchman at the Utah trapping store, was standing in an expanding puddle of gasoline the night in 1997 when he chased arsonists away. Police later found the molotov cocktail the arsonists had apparently planned to use to ignite the fuel. . . > “They knew I was in the building,” Horton said. “The lights were on. My truck was in front. My lunch bucket and thermos were on the counter where they could see it. They intended to burn me and the building.” > > Coronado does not now rule out the possibility that someone could be killed - either deliberately or by accident - as crimes in the name of the environment continue. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/24 "2002-07-01T03:08:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Or Timothy McVeigh, I don’t remember anybody calling him a terrorist. Seriously? Did you avoid every source of news in the country between the OK bombing and his execution? Heck, he got his own book on the subject: American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing by Lou Michel, Dan Herbeck. While I’m sure that Google’s 27,500 hits on “mcveigh terrorist” include a number of hits on only one or the other of those words, the first 200 hits are all based on direct links between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/25 "2002-07-01T03:09:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > \*\*First off, I do not want to put myself in the position of being the apologist for the ELF. \*\* Well, you’re doing a helluva impression so far. > [@](#): > > **But…I think there are some misconceptions running abound on what the ELF’s motives are.** No, there are no misconceptions. They destroy things that don’t belong to them in order to ‘convince’ companies not to do what they’re doing. We understand what their motives are. We just think they’re wrong. > [@](#): > > \*\*The reason I started this threat is because the ELF aims to take the profit incentive out of the damage to the environment. \*\* Spiking trees is taking the profit incentive out of industry the way that land mines take the incentive out of using a road. They’re out there, one of them is eventually going to get you, but you’re left with the fun game of uncertainty about which tree (or step) is going to be the _one_… > [@](#): > > \*\*But, since the ELF aims to take the profit motive out of killing the environment, and does not aim to arouse fear and terror in people, is this still considered terrorism? Basically (and I got this from reading the FAQ from the NAELFPO), they believe that by destroying property that is destroying the environment, companies may begin to lose profits. In case these companies are insured, the ELF hopes that continued damage to specific companies will cause insurance companies to drop their clients because of a loss of monetary incentive. Monetary incentive, not terror. \*\* Well, they scare the hell out of me. They’re idiots running around with high-explosives and firebombs, why shouldn’t we be scared? Are you truly saying that you trust that they’re going to be **so** careful that no one is ever going to be killed by their actions? Sorry, but I don’t believe that for a moment. They are attempting to capitalize not only on the destruction they cause, but the fear of violence, to bring about a change in other people’s behaviors. You may somehow find that all laudable because they’ve got such high minded goals, but to me it puts them in the same bus as the IRA, Al Queda, Sendero Luminoso and all the other groups who destroy things to make their points. Admittedly, they’re in the back of the bus, still looking for the correct change, but there on it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In one particular example, the ELF destroyed the office of Catherine Ives, a researcher for Monsanto. The ELF states that they destroyed years of her work, as well as 400,00-900,000 dollars in damage. What they did was not arise fear in people’s hearts, but rather made physical, substantial damage to an industry that is harming the environment.\*\* Wow, there’s something to be proud of. I’m sure it will go down on their Junior Achievment forms so they can imortalize their victory. \*\* > [@](#): > > I guess I could see how that could be considered terrorist by some. \*\* Then why are we having this conversaiton? > [@](#): > > \*\*I guess I woud like to have a standard definition of terrorism to work with. Webster gives me “the use of terror or intimidation to achieve one’s political objectives” and says terror is “intense fear, fright, or dread.” Since the ELF’s objectives are monetary damage and not intense fear, can the ELF still be considered a terrorist organization? Can the term “freedom fighters” apply? \*\* I dunno, let’s ask the Contras. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Irregardless, these actions are not akin to those of 9/11. I think everyone can agree that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were despicable. Is the US using the word ‘terrorist’ to demonize the ELF, and compare them to the Al Qaeda, despite the fact that the ELF would never tolerate the loss of human life that was the crux of the Al Qaeda acts? \*\* They are akin. Not of the same scale, by any means, but of the same variety. They use senseless violence in an attempt to achieve their goal. Wherein lies the basic difference? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, I’d like to publicly state that the use of patronizing, condescending language by drachillix and msmith is personally insulting to me. Throwing in “cute fuzzy animals” or “pink unicorns” or whatever similar terms is not only glossing over the gigantic environmental problems that we face, but is also generalizing all those who care about the environment and labeling them all as new age, naive, idealistic hippies with posters of unicorns on their walls and crystals tied around their necks. That is bullshit. There are plenty of logical, intelligent, informed, and well-intentioned people in the environmental movement. \*\* Before going off the deep end, I think you should read up on what is meant by the “invisible pink unicorn”. They are brought up as an example that there is just as much evidence for them being the Creators of the Universe as God. It wasn’t a slam against you or your ideas… well, probably a slam against the ideas because it was only the invisible pink unicorns that kept people safe when ALF and ELF started blowing things up. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/26 "2002-07-01T03:10:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > First off, I do not want to put myself in the position of being the apologist for the ELF. While I admire the courage and ideals of these cells, and also admire the fact that these cells must take every precaution necessary to prevent the loss of life, I consider myself a true pacifist. Thus, I do not agree with the tactics of the ELF. I could never live with myself if I had something to do with the death of another person, which, as someone pointed out, is liable to happen eventually. (Although I would like to get a cite from tomndebb on the several near deaths he mentioned). Consider yourself a true hypocrite. At least have the conviction to either condemn the ELF based on their actions, regardless of their motiviation or don’t call yourself a pacifist while condoning their violent behavior. To reitterate drachillix’s point, how does the ELF “take every precaution”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > The reason I started this threat is because the ELF aims to take the profit incentive out of the damage to the environment (which, as msmith said, is an unfortunate by-product of the needs of the current world capitalist system). Don’t blame capitalism. Blame the fact that there are 6 billion people living on the planet. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > But, since the ELF aims to take the profit motive out of killing the environment, and does not aim to arouse fear and terror in people, is this still considered terrorism? There are methods of taking the profit out of a business venture that do not involve brning things down. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > Basically (and I got this from reading the FAQ from the NAELFPO), they believe that by destroying property that is destroying the environment, companies may begin to lose profits. In case these companies are insured, the ELF hopes that continued damage to specific companies will cause insurance companies to drop their clients because of a loss of monetary incentive. Monetary incentive, not terror. How is it not “terrorism”? They are destroying property that isn’t theirs in order to inspire fear in anyone considering those industries as an investment opportunity. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > In one particular example, the ELF destroyed the office of Catherine Ives, a researcher for Monsanto. The ELF states that they destroyed years of her work, as well as 400,00-900,000 dollars in damage. What they did was not arise fear in people’s hearts, but rather made physical, substantial damage to an industry that is harming the environment. This company? > **[Bayer Crop Science](https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/)** > > Bayer Crop Science is working to help farmers grow food more sustainably. Learn what we're doing to help nourish the world. Let me get this straight. These lunatics break into a biotech company that makes herbicides, pesticides and other products that help grow crops, they do almost a million $$ in damage and set back research by years? And you think that is okay? What are you, nuts? Who proclaimed these people to be the guardians of the environment? Who gave these people the right to decide which businesses should be profitable and which ones should be torched? How are they any diferent than any other petty vandel or arsonist? (Other than their arson and vandelism are politically motivated, which seats them near, if not in, the “terrorist” section). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > I guess I could see how that could be considered terrorist by some. I guess I woud like to have a standard definition of terrorism to work with. Webster gives me “the use of terror or intimidation to achieve one’s political objectives” and says terror is “intense fear, fright, or dread.” Since the ELF’s objectives are monetary damage and not intense fear, can the ELF still be considered a terrorist organization? Can the term “freedom fighters” apply? The ELF’s objectives are monetary damage. Their method is the destruction of property or the perceived threat of destruction of property to influence companies to change their behavior. Their goal is to make biotechs and research firms “afraid” to create product lines that might be perceived as harmfull to the environment. Insurance companies will be “afraid” to insure those companies for fear of economic loss. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > Irregardless, these actions are not akin to those of 9/11. I think everyone can agree that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were despicable. Is the US using the word ‘terrorist’ to demonize the ELF, and compare them to the Al Qaeda, despite the fact that the ELF would never tolerate the loss of human life that was the crux of the Al Qaeda acts? And just how will they not tolerate the loss of human life? What happens if someone is accidently killed in one of their fires? What about people who might die from cancer or starve because they destroyed research that could have saved their lives? No, they are not on the same level as Al Queda. But neither was the Unibomber or Timothy McVey. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > Also, I’d like to publicly state that the use of patronizing, condescending language by drachillix and msmith is personally insulting to me. Good because I’m laying it on pretty thick. The fact that someone would advocate destroying property and putting peoples lives in danger is offensive to me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > Throwing in “cute fuzzy animals” or “pink unicorns” or whatever similar terms is not only glossing over the gigantic environmental problems that we face, but is also generalizing all those who care about the environment and labeling them all as new age, naive, idealistic hippies with posters of unicorns on their walls and crystals tied around their necks. That is bullshit. There are plenty of logical, intelligent, informed, and well-intentioned people in the environmental movement. There are two separate issues: 1. The environment is being destroyed and should be protected 2. The ELF are torching buildings and trashing research. The fact that the ELF are doing the second item in the name of the first is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/27 "2002-07-01T03:17:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > \*\* If they’re really terrorists, why wasn’t that label applied before 9/11? On the national level their actions didn’t even raise the public’s eyebrow. \*\* They were. Or, as \*\* tomndebb\*\* inquired already, have you avoided nearly all forms of mainstream media in the last decade or so? I Goggled eco-terrorist and the **first** link is from a [wired.com](http://wired.com) story dated June, 2000 entitled [Feds Find Eco-Terrorist Files](http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,36697,00.html). It’s been used by media for a good long time before the attacks on NY and Washington. \*\* > [@](#): > > Terrorist has just become the latest catch word for demonizing. \*\* What little fantasy world are you living in where you can simply wish away unpleasant facts? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/28 "2002-07-01T04:06:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Terrorist has just become the latest catch word for demonizing. Yeah. It’s an especially handy catch word for demonizing people who engage in terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/29 "2002-07-01T04:23:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > \*\* While I admire the courage and ideals of these cells, and also admire the fact that these cells must take every precaution necessary to prevent the loss of life, I consider myself a true pacifist. \*\* Arson doesn’t sound like the best way to ensure that no life is lost. Starting fires is dangerous and can result in unforseen deaths and damages. In some states you can legally use deadly force against someone attempting arson. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Thus, I do not agree with the tactics of the ELF. \*\* Why defend them then? > [@](#): > > \*\* > But…I think there are some misconceptions running abound on what the ELF’s motives are. \*\* Irrelevant. If you steal my car to feed your family you’ve still done me harm. In this society we have ways other then force to convince people that our position is right. Maybe ELF and ALF should get a dose of their medicine? Companies can hire people to burn down the homes of those who protest against Monsanto and other companies on environmental grounds. Granted they might not actually burn the home of an ALF or ELF member. However they might put enough **fear** into them that they’d be to **intimidated** to continue their protest. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But, since the ELF aims to take the profit motive out of killing the environment, and does not aim to arouse fear and terror in people, is this still considered terrorism? \*\* ELF and ALF don’t arouse fear or terror? HA HA. Sure, they’re no McVeigh but I imagine some people worry about them. Others have already given some examples of those who worried about them. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Since the ELF’s objectives are monetary damage and not intense fear, can the ELF still be considered a terrorist organization? Can the term “freedom fighters” apply? \*\* Well the goal of most terrorist isn’t usually fear that is just the tool they use to get what they want. If you threaten my livlihood then you’ll probably cause me some fear, stress, anxiety, and many other problems. “I’m sorry sweetie. We have to move because the bank is taking the house away. Why? Because daddy hasn’t been able to work because someone firebombed the warehouse and destroyed the equipment.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > Irregardless, these actions are not akin to those of 9/11. I think everyone can agree that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were despicable. \*\* It is a matter of scale. ALF and ELF aren’t as bad as many other terrorist and I’ll agree with you. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Is the US using the word ‘terrorist’ to demonize the ELF, and compare them to the Al Qaeda, despite the fact that the ELF would never tolerate the loss of human life that was the crux of the Al Qaeda acts? \*\* ALF and ELF are arsonist. Since when are arsonist unwilling to tolerate the loss of a human life? They aren’t being demonized we’re just calling a spade a spade. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There are plenty of logical, intelligent, informed, and well-intentioned people in the environmental movement. \*\* To bad you don’t see any of them protesting. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And december, I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on your claims that the environment is improving. Yes, in the last decade some important legislation has been passed. That fact has by no means improved the environment. \*\* You want instantaneous gratification? Cars are running cleaner every year, homes are becoming more energy efficent, appliances are becoming more energy efficent, and alternative energy vehicles are starting to become viable options. I don’t have a cite handy but I think Los Angeles has better air quality now then it did in the 70’s. Things are getting a bit better but you can’t expect everything to be ok overnight. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Hog farms, because of lack of legislation, are releasing tons of waste into our rivers. Dairy and cattle farms, because of the methane gas released by the high concentration of cows, is causing a considerably negative effect on our air quality. Very wasteful and high polluting companies are still ‘grandfathered’ in many cases to the legislation of the last decade. \*\* We have a means through elected officials of changing laws which doesn’t include terrorism. Marc And as an aside. I first heard of ALF about 4-5 years ago and they were called eco-terrorist then. So it isn’t some new term that’s suddenly popped up post 9-11. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/30 "2002-07-01T04:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Ankh\_Too \* > They were. Or, as \*\* tomndebb_\* inquired already, have you avoided nearly all forms of mainstream media in the last decade or so? I Goggled eco-terrorist and the **first** link is from a [wired.com](http://wired.com) story dated June, 2000 entitled [Feds Find Eco-Terrorist Files](http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,36697,00.html). It’s been used by media for a good long time before the attacks on NY and Washington. Fair enough. I can’t remember hearing the term until November of last year or so though. I don’t happen to be a regular reader of Wired. I’m not sure what you consider mainstream, but Wired was the only national publication of any noticable size that I saw when I just did a search. I feel like the discussion has taken a new turn and become much more of a mainstream issue due to 9/11. **tomndebb** The most popular label I know for McViegh is “Oklahoma City Bomber”. I don’t have a problem with people calling him a terrorist but I didn’t remember it happening. If he’s a terrorist what sort of terrorist is he? Do we have handy catch phrase for it? Why can’t we just call him or anybody else simply a terrorist? Why eco-terrorist? The term gets used very lightly for things like setting up roadblocks or tree sitting too.Things that are not intended to cause fear in any manner. I interpret it as a slander to the environmental movement. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/31 "2002-07-01T04:47:38Z")
Well, for one thing, Tim McVeigh is only one person, and very shortly after he committed an act of terror, he was in prison, and thus no longer a terrorist. I guess that he doesn’t get referred to as a terrorist as much due to failure to actually instill much terror, despite trying. Please provide cites that calling tree-sitters “eco-terrorists” is an accepted usage. I’m not sure what media you get your information from, but I can’t recall ever hearing the term used to refer to anything other than organized groups like ALF or ELF. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/32 "2002-07-01T05:11:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > \*\*What they do is start controlled burns in buildings that they believe are contributing to the destruction of our environment This made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair. Controlled burns in buildings? Somebody just watched backdraft didn’t they? Are the people in question hanging around with charged hoses at the ready just in case the fire gets out of hand? Maybe they applied for a burn permit? How did they determine the building was empty of all living things? No cars out front, oops the night maintenance guy got dropped off today while his cars in the shop. This is flat out, no excuses or petty rationalizations arson and destruction of private property. If someone was killed in the process IIRC from my fire investigation class it becomes murder 1. > [@](#): > > These groups are against the loss of life- human or non-human, which means that they must take every precaution necessary to not harm or kill any being. Then don’t light buildings on fire! Fire when used this way is a devastating weapon, and a very lethal one. The people best able to control and or operate in a fire based environment are not the people doing this (or did someone let John Orr out of prison) > [@](#): > > So far, nobody has been killed because of an ALF or ELF action. > \*\* Thank, God, Godess, Budda, Satan, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Phil, Luck, The Force or whatever you believe in. ---
**Author:** ![Fugazi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f08c70/32.png) [@Fugazi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fugazi)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/33 "2002-07-01T06:36:43Z")
Wow **drachillix** I think you just set a new record for double posts, 9 1/2 hours between them. 🙂 First, to the OP. They’re terrorists & if caught, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second, about the environment getting better, my anecdote. When I was growing up in the mid 70’s, Lake Erie was a cesspool. They were actually calling it “dead” and thought it would never recover. By the late 80’s, there was no limit on catching perch and you could easily catch 60-70 in a day of fishing. Here in Denver, the air quality is much better than it was 10-15 years ago. Sure, there is always more to be done, and it’s being done by scientists, government, and “evil” corporations. People running around burning down buildings isn’t going to help. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/34 "2002-07-01T10:25:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > \*\*But let’s think a moment about the term. Would, for instance, the unabomber be an eco-terrorist, or simply a lone nut? Clearly he intended to kill, maim and cause fear but his rationale wasn’t entirely clear. There’s all kinds of nuts in this country, some of them bomb abortion clinics. Do we need the term “abortion terrorists”? I think it’s clearly an attempt to capitalize on September 11 to grant the government excessive powers. \*\* What? “Eco-terrorist” isn’t a new term, and definatly not first applied to the ELF recently. I’ve heard the term applied to the ELF for… Oh, 5 or 10 years, maybe. Ever since the first time I heard of the ELF, in any case. Then again, I live in Oregon, where they seem to be especially active. Spiking trees, burning/blowing up bulldozers, even torching a ski lodge (I think that one was around 1.2 million dollars, too). And as a note, yes, the unabomber was generally defined as using terrorist tactics. Still a lone nut, they’re not exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/35 "2002-07-01T18:39:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by waterj2 \* > Please provide cites that calling tree-sitters “eco-terrorists” is an accepted usage. I’m not sure what media you get your information from, but I can’t recall ever hearing the term used to refer to anything other than organized groups like ALF or ELF. The Patriot act purportedly contains provisions for eco-terrorism that are similar to a house bill that expands the current “Animal Enterprise Terrorism” to include agricultural industries. But I couldn’t find them. The current law reads defines a terrorist act as: > [@](#): > > (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or > causes to be used the mail or any facility in interstate or > foreign commerce, for the purpose of causing physical disruption > to the functioning of an animal enterprise; and > (2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning > of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or > causing the loss of, any property (including animals or records) > used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage > exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or conspires to do so; So if H. R. 2795 passes (or passed not sure of the current status) this will expanded to include the term “Animal and plant enterprise terrorism” Notice the vague words like “physical disruption” and inclusion of crimes like stealing. I’m sure there will be those eager to call things like tree sitting and building roadblocks “physical disruption” and be ready to test the law out. Also plainly setting lab animals free is “terrorism”. This is a blatant misuse of the word for emotive impact in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/36 "2002-07-01T19:39:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > \*\* > Notice the vague words like “physical disruption” and inclusion of crimes like stealing. I’m sure there will be those eager to call things like tree sitting and building roadblocks “physical disruption” and be ready to test the law out. \*\* I’m not sure why you think it is vague. The cite you provided went on to define what physical disruption would be and I don’t recall tree sitting and building roadblocks to be on the list. Specifically they mentioned stealing, damaging, or causing the lose of property. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also plainly setting lab animals free is “terrorism”. > This is a blatant misuse of the word for emotive impact in my opinion. \*\* Perhaps you’d feel a bit different if an organized group was looking to disrupt your livlihood. Marc ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/37 "2002-07-01T21:38:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > I’m not sure why you think it is vague. The cite you provided went on to define what physical disruption would be and I don’t recall tree sitting and building roadblocks to be on the list. Specifically they mentioned stealing, damaging, or causing the lose of property. Hmm…maybe your right that “and” in paragraph 1 could be very important. If “loss of property” isn’t stealing or damaging what is it though? If a company can’t log a tree because you’re in it, they would definitely have a case for you causing economic damage. Economic damage would be expanded in HR 2795 to > [@](#): > > the loss of revenue (including costs related to business recovery) directly related to the disruption of a plant or animal enterprise, Look at the intent of HR 2795 > [@](#): > > To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect and promote the public safety and interstate commerce by establishing Federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for certain violent, threatening, obstructive, and destructive conduct that is intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with plant or animal enterprises, and for other purposes. So “obstructive” conduct (clearly differentiated from the “destructive” kind) that is intended to “interfere” seems to be one of the intents of this bill. Another little side note on this bill is the inclusiveness of it. The animal and plant enterprises are explained as > [@](#): > > a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals or plants for food or fiber production, agriculture, breeding, processing, research, or testing, or any commercial retail, wholesale or distribution enterprise that uses, purchases, or offers for sale a product that contains animal or plant material; Jeezow, so if I go into a grocery store and shoplift GMO foods, I’m a terrorist? > [@](#): > > Perhaps you’d feel a bit different if an organized group was looking to disrupt your livlihood. I’d be pissed, but I’d still call it theft. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/38 "2002-07-01T22:09:47Z")
::sigh:: who gives a rat’s ass whether the ELF and ALF are “terrorists” or “common thugs.” Let’s just call them “evil” and be done with it. Better yet, let’s get more detailed - they are “lazy and arrogant.” Their attitude is simple - “we know what’s best for the rest of you, but it would be too hard for us to convince you that our position is the correct one, so we’ll just burn shit.” Sua ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/39 "2002-07-01T22:45:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by perspective \* > \*\* > I’d be pissed, but I’d still call it theft. \*\* To be fair their actions go far beyond petty theft so I don’t think we should focus on that aspect alone. Personally I’m not a big fan of new laws and I’m unsure why we need any to deal with eco-terrorist or any other breed of terrorist. We can already throw people in jail for trespassing if they decide to chain themselves to trees, we’ve already got laws against arson, theft, and vandalism. Marc ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2002, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711/40 "2002-07-01T23:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > Personally I’m not a big fan of new laws and I’m unsure why we need any to deal with eco-terrorist or any other breed of terrorist. We can already throw people in jail for trespassing if they decide to chain themselves to trees, we’ve already got laws against arson, theft, and vandalism. I agree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-eco-terrorism-really-terrorism/116711.md?page=3)