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.
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.
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.
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.
**
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…
**
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.
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.
**
**
Then why are we having this conversaiton?
**
I dunno, let’s ask the Contras.
**
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?
**
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.
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”?
Don’t blame capitalism. Blame the fact that there are 6 billion people living on the planet.
There are methods of taking the profit out of a business venture that do not involve brning things down.
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.
This company?
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).
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.
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.
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.
There are two separate issues:
The environment is being destroyed and should be protected
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.
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 story dated June, 2000 entitled Feds Find Eco-Terrorist Files. It’s been used by media for a good long time before the attacks on NY and Washington.
**
What little fantasy world are you living in where you can simply wish away unpleasant facts?
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.
**
Why defend them then?
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.”
**
It is a matter of scale. ALF and ELF aren’t as bad as many other terrorist and I’ll agree with you.
**
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.
**
To bad you don’t see any of them protesting.
**
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.
**
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Thank, God, Godess, Budda, Satan, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Phil, Luck, The Force or whatever you believe in.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Perhaps you’d feel a bit different if an organized group was looking to disrupt your livlihood.
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
Look at the intent of HR 2795
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
Jeezow, so if I go into a grocery store and shoplift GMO foods, I’m a terrorist?
::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.”
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.
