Would you call the ELF's action's Terrorism?

Great Debates
1

Foxnews has come out to call the Earth Liberation Front’s actions this weekend “Domestic Terrorism.”
Does this deserve the same nomenclature as the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing or the Oklahoma City Bombing by McVeigh?
SUVs Vandalized, Torched at L.A.-Area Dealerships

Friday, August 22, 2003

WEST COVINA, Calif. — Fires destroyed dozens of SUVs (search) and a warehouse at an auto dealership Friday, and vehicles there and at three other dealerships were spray-painted with slogans such as “Fat, Lazy Americans.”

“With all the evidence … it’s highly likely it’s an arson fire,” said Rick Genovese, fire marshal for West Covina, a Los Angeles suburb.

The radical group Earth Liberation Front (search) issued an unsigned e-mail Friday calling the incidents “ELF actions,” and the FBI was investigating the dealership fire as domestic terrorism, Police Chief Frank Wills said.

The underground group has claimed responsibility for a slew of arson attacks (search) against commercial entities that members say damage the environment. It is suspected in a multimillion-dollar arson fire Aug. 1 that destroyed a five-story apartment complex under construction in San Diego, though an ELF e-mail claimed the group had not been in contact with those responsible in that case.

The blazes at the Clippinger Chevrolet dealership broke out about 5 a.m. Friday. Flames destroyed about 20 vehicles, mostly Hummer H2s, which are luxury SUVs patterned after the military’s workhorse Humvee. Another 20 vehicles were badly damaged. A separate blaze caved in a warehouse roof.

There were no reports of injuries, but damage was estimated at $1 million.

SUVs at dealerships in nearby cities of Arcadia, Duarte and Monrovia were also vandalized, though there were no other fires.

Among the slogans written on the sides and hoods of vehicles were “I (heart) Pollution” and “American Wastefullness.” “ELF” was written on at least one vehicle.

General Motors Corp. (search) spokesman Brian Akre called the blaze a “reprehensible criminal act” and said the Detroit-based company, whose brands include Hummer (search) and Chevrolet, was thankful that the fire didn’t result in injuries.

“If this was some kind of misguided attempt to make a political statement, those responsible should know that committing arson and putting property and people in danger is not the way to gain public support for their position,” Akre said.

2

It is terrorism. The intent is to frighten the dealers into no longer selling the vehicles and frighten buyers into no longer buying them. Today they torch a lot. Tomorrow, they start shooting drivers.

3

Here’s the official State Dept. definition of terrorism. To tell the truth I’m not sure if any of the provisions apply to ELF. Maybe someone with better reading comprehension skills than I can find something that fits.

4

No I would not, since their aim is apparently not to induce terror. Calling them terrorists is watering down a powerful verb and taking the pranks of silly kids serious to a degree which they do not merit. How about “vandalism”? Or “politically motivated vandalism” to distinguish them from your average pillaging kids, perhaps “middle class teenagers with too much time on their hands”? Too long, how about just plain old “stupid”?

  • Rune
5

Any sort of name we give something has a degree: I’m 240 lbs. Do I deserve that same nomenclature - fat - as someone who weighs 700 and can’t leave his bed? Most people would sure think I do.

Anyway, ELF’s actions are deplorable and it’s only a matter of time before someone does die. Is ELF a more moral organization so long as they don’t accidentally off somebody? And how can a fellow feel secure so long as he fears vigilantes might burn down his SUV if he’s in the wrong place at the wrong time, even if he’s not inside to be roasted?

6

I say ELF is a terrorist group.

7

The problem is that it isn’t much of an “organisation” as it is a group of instructions and cells of people who try to follow them.

It’s a little ugly, reading an interview with the spokesperson Leslie James Pickering she basically said (it seemed to me) that she would not accept responsibility for any attacks that don’t successfully meet the ELF criteria, ie noone is killed. So basically if someone is killed then she says “Oh that wasn’t a real ELF action”. Kinda BS to me, if you are going to advocate dangerous action you must accept the consequences.

It seems the GeurillaNews.com (GNN) where I read it is down at the moment. The article with the interview was “burn baby burn” at www.guerrillanews.com/environment/doc448.html

8

Emmm. That would be noun :smack: – a noun we need when for much worse crimes.

  • Rune
9

If we are going to call them terrorists shouldn’t at least someone say they feel terrorized or some ELF guy say that is their intent? Their stated purpose is to raise awareness and physically stop people from polluting.

They may be dangerous criminals but I don’t think it’s appropriate to call them terrorists. A violent extortion ring wouldn’t be called “terrorist” but they come a lot closer, IMHO.

10

It does not surprise me that they are percieved as a terrorist group. But I don’t think of them that way.

For example, by today’s legal definition (and with adjustments for inflation) the Boston Tea Party would have been a terrorist act.

11

Someone read the link I gave and tell me where they fit. I feel like they are terorists, but I just don’t see how the definition includes them.

12

autz I don’t think it does include them- your feeling that they are a terrorist does not match official defintion. They target inanimate objects, terrorists attack people. If people are “terrorized” that their hummer is going to be vandalized they need to see a doctor.

I guess you could try to say the first definition “The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).” covers them. I think it’s clear they mean occupied vehicles.

13

Perhaps we don’t quite have a word that defines their actions. Terrorism seems too harsh as they don’t seem to intend to seriously harm or kill anyone. Vandalism seems too weak as it isn’t some random prank, but violence directed at a certain group of citizens. But, if I had to pick one or the other, I’d go with terrorism. Their actions are meant to force behavior change on people outside the political process.

14

The ELF has claimed responsibility for a slew of arson attacks against commercial entities that members say threaten or damage the environment. It is suspected in a $50 million arson Aug. 1 fire that destroyed a five-story housing complex under construction in San Diego’s fast-growing northern edge.

Your definition of “prank” and mine are obviously quite different.

Yes, they are terrorists.

15

*No lives lost
*property damage only
*epiteths are meant to discourage big business not govt

No terrorism here.

Criminal definitely but not terrorism. If this is terrorism, then I wish all terrorsits adopt this strategy. It would go along way to improving their PR. This is a vandalistic protest. Insurace takes care of the losses, the main target is the SUVs themselves not the dealers or the owners. Misguided but absolutely not terrorism

16

I agree with you that the State Dept. definition requires threats to people, not just to property.

OTOH the dictionary definition includes both:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

17

>>>intimidating or coercing societies or governments<<<
Doesn’t bother me if West Covina Hummer gets a pasting – that’s called “felony destruction of property.” We in SoCal are not screaming through the streets in fear for our very lives.

Now if a group of people (or just one person for that matter) started using tin-can nitro or Molotovs on SUVs parked at the homes of Citizens or in public parking lots, then there’d be a cause to call it terrorism. In my book, you have to either spill some blood or cause people to abandon the pursuit you are attacking in order to get the Big T.

When “ELF” burned the lodge at Vail, that was frickin’ tragic – but many people, including myself, still hung out there all winter. Not terrorism either.

Further, who really gives a shit what the State Department says is terrorism? It’s still our society, right? Just extrapolate: The last thing we need is little Melvin and his group of pedal-pushers serving 10-25 in Leavenworth on a Federal Terrorism rap for spraypainting “Fat, Lazy Americans” on a bunch of cars.

18

You don’t have to terrorize people to be a terrorist now. All it takes is some dangerous acts and an attempt to coerce civilians or influence government policy, thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act (Unstable Sick Amerikkkans Pilgering And Traitorously Ruining Inviolate hOnorable Truths):

“Under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any State and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l102301d.html

They are terrorists, but one man’s terrorist is another woman’s freedom figher. In the PPA (Post-Petroleum Age), they will be revered as heroes.

http://dieoff.org/page171.htm

19

oops…supposed to be ‘pilfering’ not ‘pilgering.’ Apologies to John Pilger.

20

Doesn’t matter if terrorism succeeds in inducing terror. There’s a reason “attempted murder” is still a crime.

Yes, this was terrorism. Was anyone hurt? No, but they could’ve been. Was there a message? Yes, “SUV’s are bad”. Was this a rational reason to get the message across? No. Anyone that says otherwise is a fool. Was this a mere “crime”? No, because there were no direct personal gains made by the perpetrator. Was this a mere prank? No, and anyone that says otherwise is a fool.