Colinito67 -
I agree with you, the Media and various Governments are experts at swaying the public’s perspective of important issues, and most often for nothing other than political and/or monetary
rewards. Similarly, those institutions have the amazing ability to take the smallest issues (“The Who goes on after Entwistle death” or “Yankees acquire Mondesi from Blue Jays” for example) and turning them into genuine, bonafide pop culture.
Similarly, ALF and ELF should in no way put in the same theoretical “category” as Hamas, or al Queda, or the IRA, and the other usual usupects.
They should be put in some theoretical “category,” and they should be legally pursued. But, it is unforunate that they get associated merely by the umbrella-buzz-word “terrorists.”
It’s amazing the associations people allow themselves to make, (take this example, or any racial stereotype, or any other stereotype concerning any minority) and allow themselves to overlook (Eat a burger today? Congratulations! You’re a killer! You give money to companies that cut down rainforests! You’re more likely to be obese! But that’s a whole different issue . . .).
The issue of who is a “terrorist” and what exactly “terrorism” is terribly (pun) subjective. For the former, my old dictionary says the use of force to intimidate, etc., ecpecially as a political policy.
“Terrify” is to fill with terror, frighten greatly.
“Terrorize” is to terrify; to coerce, make submit, etc. by filling with terror.
And finally, the root, “Terror” is intense fear; one that causes intense fear; the quality of causing such fear.
Here’s an article, about a group of those “crazy environmentalists,” or what more open-minded people refer to as “activists,” who used hang gliders to fly into a supposedly “secure” nuclear reactor in Australia. They hung huge posters reading “Nuclear. Never safe.” Sure, they meant to inspire fear in people, the fear that nearby neclear reactors aren’t safe. Should these hang-gliding activists be considered terrorists?
Someone posted the tidbit "These people are self-righteous thugs that seek to enact change through intimidation. "
How is that different than political lobby groups? Than politicians? Than labor unions? Than the wonderful souls at the National Meat and Dairy Association who publish bullshit nutritional pyramids and give them to small children, all the while saying “if you don’t eat lots of meat, you won’t grow up to be strong like Daddy” and “if you don’t drink three glasses of milk a day, you’ll be short, get osteoperosis, and more than likely unattractive?”
Oh, that’s excused because it’s in the realm of “business.”
msmith537 said “George W Bush is not deliberately targeting the environment for destruction” about the whole George Bush/Kyoto Treaty analogy.
Well, in this instance, the Dairy Council is deliberately targeting small children, ans seeking to profit from it.
In another instance, yes, McDonalds is deliberately contracting companies to burn down thousands of acres of rainforests. Is this terrorism?
Sure, McDonalds can legally “own” the land, but doesn’t it seem that problematic? That they can own something so vital to our planet, and choose to destroy it?
Someone mentioned Monsanto. Take a look at this article and decide whether or not that they should be considered terrorists. They knew what was going on. They chose not to do anything about it.
Let’s look at something from a previous post:
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.”
Do Monsanto’s fit this definition? Do McDonalds (interfere with plant and animal enterprises)?
What about the various companies who contribute so much pollution it created a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, so polluted than no living creatures can survive there. Read about it here and/or here.
Are BioTech and GMO companies eco-terrorists? For knowingly selling a product they knew would reproduce when planted, infecting the non-GMO crops? Or how about selling GMO foods with minimal testing on humans? And then advertsising them as being even better?
Why is this “just business?” That makes it permissible? I don’t understand why.
These are the more serious issues at hand, because there are lives being lost as a direct result. (Money too, for you economic-minded folk out there.)
One SamStone said “it’s only a matter of time before they kill someone, and maybe a lot of people,” through which he implied that “we” ought to do something about eco-terrorists.
Well, why don’t “we” do something about all of the companies and/or individuals who are actually already involved with and doing much worse deeds? Because “we” choose to turn the other way, because “they’ll” (whoever “they are”) will fix the problems. It’s easy to scorn those who stand up for their beliefs, when you don’t have any beliefs of your own.
Sure, it’s easy to poke fun at and disdain the “tree huggers,” “hippies,” “tofu-sucking vegetarians,” and “environmentalists” when you’re an overweight slob who eats 2 out of 3 meals at McDonalds, smokes, buys lots of stupid shit all the time, and generally feels no moral obligation to the Earth.
Colinito67, it’s great that you’re thinking about these issues. But, unfortunatley, the Straight Dope isn’t the place to talk about these kinds of issues.
Though the forum is called “Great Debates,” and the people here like to brand themselves “intellectuals,” it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to partake in any useful and/or productive discourse.
Some inspiring quote from others in this thread, which you’ve already read, such as “Thugs, pure and simple,” “Because you think they are protecting all the cute and fuzzy animals from the mean cancer research scientists,” “Thank, God, Godess, Budda, Satan, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Phil, Luck, The Force or whatever you believe in,” “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,” “Consider yourself a true hypocrite,” “::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,” “This is fun. I have to hand it to you, Colinto, you came up with a nice form letter for justifying any violent/terrorist action,” “No, they aren’t. They’re pathetic, hypocritical, anti-capitalist Luddites who want to return people to a “state of nature” that not only have humans never lived under, but that they themselves don’t live under,” “You’re right. It’s SUCH a negative word. I think we need a more positive, uplifting word to replace it.”
Nice debating, people. Good job looking constructively and intelligently debating an important discussion. So the OP wasn’t 100% perfectly worded? That doesn’t nullify the argument, nor does it make environmentalism and/or eco-terrorism any less important issues.
A natural (non cynical, non know-it-all, non terribly-uncreative-and-rather-immature) discussion should went in the direction of “what are, then, good ways in which we and others can show and voice discontent for environmental policies, governments, and companies who drive people to do crazy shit like blow up builldings.”
But, you won’t find that here.
Colinito67, please, read some more books, do everything you can, in your own personal life, to minimalize the amount of damage you do to the earth. It will feel good, and you’ll set a positive example to those (especially children) around you. Debating on the SDMB with these “intellectuals” will neither be enlightening nor beneficial. Leave them to their important, “ignorance-fighting” topics such as “What’s so great about ‘civilisation’” and “I am a selfish bastard. So what?”
Environmentalism, or anything else which requires any amount of effort, or change, is bitterly disliked, and only makes people defensive, feel guilty, and therefore go into “verbal attack” mode.
I’ll leave you with a quote from a book (fiction) I’m reading now:
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker’s game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen-year-olds posessing infinte amounts of free time.”
Bingo.
Best,
The Great Dalmuti
PS - msmith537 said "The fact that someone would advocate destroying property and putting peoples lives in danger is offensive to me. "
Do you eat meat? If so, then you’re highly offensive to yourself.