Question: What good will it do? They claim it will “…remove the profit motive from the killing of the natural environment.” With insurance covering the loss of four vehicles, how is this “removing the proft motive”?
And a lighter question: (obligatory Monty Python reference) Is this really the Earth Liberation Front or the Liberation Front of the Earth?
they’re just a bunch of jackasses.
they have a sister organization called the animal lib. front (or possibly, the popular animal’s front of judea — can’t remember)
I believe both organizations are considered domestic terrorist groups.
I don’t know why you pay any attention to peoples’ stated motivations — if you want to divine the motivations of some people, you need a shrink.
So… I take it you disapprove of their actions? This could actually be an interesting thread. There are a few interesting questions here:
Do you believe that the Earth is worth defending?
If so, what tactics are acceptable?
My answers would be:
Yes. Obviously.
The worthiness of an action is determined by its effectiveness. If torching SUV’s actually does have the effect of removing the profit motive from producing more SUV’s, then I would support such actions. The continuing degradation of the ecosystem will not stop until the capitalist order is smashed and a more humane, sustainable system put in its place. Any environmental movement that does not work toward this goal is simply delaying the inevitable. Organizations like Greenpeace, in my opinion, do not help the environment in the long-term, since they simply provide window dressing for the capitalist order by blunting some of its more rough edges. They simply delay the inevitable. Only an uncompomising hostility toward capitalism and its destructive effects can have any long-lasting effect on the viability of life on Earth.
From this point of view, I would say that the ELF, and more moderate organizations like Earth First! have the right approach, but that without a holistic theory of capitalism and revolution, they are spinning their wheels. They may, along with Greenpeace, help to delay the inevitable, but only a throwing off of the old order will save the Earth and ourselves.
Uff da, so the ends justify the means? Well, since the U.S. doesn’t want another rogue nuclear state like North Korea, it’d be easier just to threaten war with them than to have investigation to verify its own claims. Woudn’t it? Maybe to get their point across, the ELF should get a sharp shooter and go after William Clay Ford, Robert J Eaton, John Smith and all of the automobile CEOs just to get their attention that the SUVs are ruining the earth. Sure it’s a small loss but I think they could make their point that way.
:rolleyes:
To condone violence when there are other sensible options out there is just sliding down the slippery slope. What good will torching the SUVs do? Not much, it doesn’t give credence that the ELF is a sane, rational organization (IMO). What they did was very dangerous and had the propensity to affect more than just the SUVs, it could’ve hurt/maimed/killed innocent passersby as well as fire fighters.
But here’s the most interesting part: torching SUVs is perfectly ineffective. The dealer will hire some security guards; the people who buy SUVs will think that ELF is a bunch of nuts, and tar all environmentalists as part of the same silly, radical front; as a domestic terrorist organization, ELF is prevented from doing anything but domestic terror because they can’t act as a public organization.
So, given that burning down SUVs and ski lodges is pragmaticallly ineffective, what good was their action?
I understand neither people who destroy other people’s property for the sake of making a point about environmental destruction, nor people who brag about how much environmental destruction their lifestyle chooses are causing.
Gee, perhaps if ELF had existed 40 years ago, they might have destroyed the forest research facilities looking into taxol derived from Pacific Northwest Yew trees. If so, several million women who are alive today would probably be dead.
trying to rationalize that kind of violent behavior w/any kind of motivation other than ‘serious anger issues’, or ‘fucked up childhood’, is moronic.
suv’s are covered by insurance.
insurance company pays.
more suv’s are ordered as replacements.
the demand for suv’s goes up.
not only do these assholes have no rational motivation (psychosis is not a rational motivation), they don’t even have common sense.
I would hesitate to label them “terrorists.” A true terrorist inspires, well, * terror * in a large population of people. The E.L.F might have caused monetary damages, but, as yet, have not caused physical harm to people. Torching a ski lodge and a few S.U.Vs should be classified as arson, or vandalism, not terrorism.
To use the term puts them on par with Al Quaeda, or Islamic Jihaad. Bombing an occupied buidling, causing mass casualties and making people afraid to leave their homes or travel is terrorism. Whether or not you agree with their tactics, they’re not terrorists.
I’d call them terrorist wannabes. They certainly see violence and destruction as valid tactic, and I’m sure it gets them all sexually excited to act out their rebel fantasies in a manner which is safe to them, i.e. minimal risk of arrest or being blown away by a annoyed property-owner.
Get these froot loops in jail before they try to “out-radical” each other and somebody gets killed.
well, no doubt you are simply more courageous than the common folk.
I would think that if your car were set fire to, your building covered in red paint, and numerous slogans scrawled on your property, you might be a little apprehensive the next day.
the only difference between this garbage and the klan is that they haven’t lynched anyone (yet).
Well, I haven’t heard many terrorists or terrorist-wannabees explain how they try to take their actions with precautions to try to insure there are no deaths or injuries. That is hardly a recipe for inciting terror.
Of course, this isn’t a justification for the property destruction they are causing nor a claim that they will continue to be successful in avoiding killing anyone when they are committing these dangerous and destructive acts. Still, let’s keep things in perspective and use the word “terrorists” to refer to people who want to instill terror…in particular fear for life or limb…in other people.
I’m not willing to cut them that much slack. They see destruction as a valid alternative to petition and the vote and are trying to modify the behaviour of others through crime.
Admittedly, that puts them in a pretty mild light compared to Osama bin Laden, and I hesitate to call them terrorists outright since it gives them more weight than they deserve. “Wannabes” conveys just the right amount of ridicule and distaste.
I believe that environmental activism can be a good thing, provided that it’s effective. Torching SUVs is not effective.
I have noticed that when activists break the law, they tend to get labeled terrorists, but I believe there is a big difference between destroying property and killing people/threatening to kill people. Destroying property isn’t terrorism.
It is, however, still ineffective. I prefer the performance art, huge street puppets, etc…
And I apologize for the double post, but does anyone remember the BLO-- Barbie Liberation Organization? They (illegally) managed to switch the voice boxes on a bunch of Barbies and GI Joes, so you had the testerone puppets moaning about math being hard, and Barbie growling “Let’s kill 'em!” (or whatever violent war cry Joe was supposed to say).
It was illegal. It damaged property. They were trying to make a point/modify behavior through crime. Were they terrorists?
