Oh yeah. You’re the EPITOME of objective.
:rolleyes:
They’re using the “illegal” threat of violence to effect social or political changes. In this particular case, torching a lot of vehicles in protest, and, considering the group’s previous activities, giving the rather strong implication that they will continue to do so if things do not change. It does fit the definition for terrorism in that aspect. But, just as with almost everything else, terrorism covers a pretty broad spectrum. I’d say the ELF is certainly more ethical about their actions than most others would be, since they have so far conducted attacks that don’t cause deaths, but with some of their actions, it’s rather surprising they haven’t killed anyone yet. Arson in particular is a unpredictable crime, and the fire could quickly get out of controll and kill someone. If they keep it up, eventually there will be some security guard or night janitor that gets killed… Or if they keep torching buildings in a major city like LA, start a fire that spreads through the neighborhood. Even worse is when they spike trees in logging areas. There’s no passing that last one off as “attacking property.” If a logger cuts into a tree and hits one of the spikes, it would break the chain, and that chain could main or kill the logger or others nearby. It’s a booby-trap designed to injure or kill people, in the same style as punji traps and the like.
And I do recall some mention in a previous SD thread about the ELF of some researchers that were very nervous about returning to work after their lab was attacked.
It might not be the “grand” kind of terrorism that everyone is accustomed to in the news recently, but it still fits.
As for the Patriot Act quote, I find myself kind of uneasy about mostly agreeing with something from that particular piece of legislation. It seems to put down more-or-less what has already been accepted as the definition of terrorism for many decades now. The only disagreement I have is the “appears to be” clause, which I think is open to abuse, and “activity that involves acts dangerous to human life” which could be taken a bit vaguely to include acts it shouldn’t include.
Do you believe that, honestly? This isn’t fun, games, and petty vandalism - millions of dollars of property has been destroyed, and the potential for human life lost is quite high if ELF stays on its course. Even were I an environmentalist I could never see them as heroes. If a libertarian went on a bombing spree of empty governmental buildings, I’d condemn him just the same, despite my sharing of some of his opinions.
ELF’s intent seems to me to coerce action through violence - just because it’s violence against property does not make it any less violent or destructive. I don’t like the patriot act more than you do, but if we’re going to use the term “terrorism” meaningfully, then any deliberate destruction of life, liberty, and property as a means to coerce societal or governmental action should fall under its definition.
So what was the torching? Attempted terrorism?
I would hope no one will call this a “prank;” it is a very dangerous way of saying “SUVs are bad.” But it’s no more terroristic than any other kind of political statement unless we allow it to be branded terrorism. The minute we start calling it terror, Hummer owners are going to start panicking, and pretty soon it will also be a hate crime to even key one.
By your tortuous reasoning, the bags of dog crap that I deposited on porches and lit on fire throughout my neighborhood could be construed as terrorism.
By the way, would you call Columbine “terrorism?”
Just curious, how do you both feel about John Brown?
Sure. Why not?
Except a reasonable, rational, realistic person would recognize that there’s a degree of difference between a dog-crap-in-a-baggy fire and burning up cars. Using your logic, there’s no difference between me kicking over some kid’s sand castle at the beach, and crashing jet planes into the World Trade Center.
Welcome to the land of the Gray Area. Care to take off your B&W shades?
Except for the fact that a fire has the potential to burn a guy or his house; kicking over a sand castle has no possibility of bodily or property harm. And you are so quick to pull out the Ace in the Hole! Oh, good Heavens, the WTC! That’s just sophistry, you should be ashamed. <grin>
We get into trouble calling stuff “terror this” and “hate crime that,” because under our system of justice, we deserve equal protection under the law. Brand this puerile felony destruction “terror” and all of a sudden we’re in deep doo doo.
Really, they’re rose-coloured. And I think my question deserves an answer, SPOOFE.
Jesus Christ was a Palestinian terrorist, in the eyes of the Romans.
Gandhi was a terrorist in the eyes of the British.
But I still support what they did and said.
Ditto John Brown, MLK, etc.
If Columbine was terrorism, it appears that it may have been state-sponsored terrorism:
“In Kick’s incredible “Witnesses to a Massacre: Other Participants in
Columbine,” the author selects excerpts from over 11,000 pages of documents related to the infamous school shooting in Littleton, Colorado. Witness after witness told investigators that they saw more than just two shooters on that day, and others claim to have heard shooting in the building more than an hour after Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had killed themselves. Kick’s essay includes descriptions of a third man who was seen throwing explosives onto the roof of the
high school, as well as a sketch of the third gunman by one of the witnesses.”
http://www.raintaxi.com/online/2002summer/kick.shtml
SPOOFE, did you mean to say that I am the EPITOME of objectivity? I just don’t see how an adjective can be epitomized, unless it is the epitome of adjectivity.
I’m not at all certain what you base these assertions on.
I’m not sure I see the equivalency, but I’ll bite: S’far as I know he was a tad ill in the head and his methods certainly wouldn’t have been mine. He did have the benefit of a righteous cause, though, something in my estimation ELF does not.
No he wasn’t.
**
Nope.
So because some people claim to have seen a third gunman, that makes it state-sponsored? How did you jump to that bizarre conclusion?
Fascinating.
Dig. Bit out of context, what with all the rabble-rabble about Jesus and Gandhi (WTF?!), but I was just trying to see if people still think Brown is a hero.
Not that I support the ELF (although they do represent an interesting paradigm in the dynamics of sedition) and its behavior. I think they’re on the right track about the roots and effects of our society’s evils, but they’re just barely scratching the surface. And I suspect, too big a bunch of pussies to go after a refinery.
Sounds like a stupid prank done for fun. Not a “dangerous act” or threat of such intended to cause a social or political change. In fact, there is no message. Just a dumb bored kid having fun at others’ expense.
No, that was multiple murders. Harris and Klebold weren’t trying to effect some social or political change through their actions. They just wanted to “pay everyone back” and have some fun before dying in a “glorious hail of gunfire.” It’s something of a gray area, but the acts do not seem to be terrorism.
That’s about the most absurd thing I’ve heard in relation to a school shooting, and I’ve heard a lot. First off, there’s nothing there to support the idea that it was “state-sponsored” in any way, or to even hint that it might possibly be the case. And second, it’s wrong. The man on the roof was a heating/AC repairman that locked himself up there when he realized something was happening.
The actual number of “suspected shooters” apparently ranged from 2-8 that day, mostly due to wild speculation on the part of scared people. As it stands, every single one of the other “suspected shooter” reports were proven to be false.
sighhh…OK, just this once, for the metaphorically challenged…i will post a cite that proves beyond an unreasonable doubt the truth of my ASSertion…
WANTED: JESUS OF NAZARETH
A Palestinian terrorist was arrested last week and tried for incitation to violence, blasphemy and performance of magic tricks in the Roman occupied Jewish territories.
http://www.jeanlouie.com/Capsules/Wanted,%20Jesus%20of%20Nazareth.htm
In the wake of the September 11th attack on
the World Trade Center, the British
government has declared Mahatma Gandhi a
terrorist. A bill recently passed by Parliment
and ratified by the House of Lords re-defines
the legal concept of “terrorist” to include
anyone who uses non-violent means, or who
advocates non-violent means, to disagree
with the government or to attempt to alter
government policies. Previous legislation
already criminalized non-cooperation with
police authorities. Gandhi’s philosophy of
non-violent non-cooperation with unjust
government policies would therefore
constitute terrorism; under the new
legislation, Gandhi could have been
imprisoned indefinitely without charge, until
he starved to death.
http://www.flashq.de/wwn18.htm
I suppose you will also inform Mr. B that ‘friscalating’ is not in the dictionary?
Actually, I targeted people’s houses who had campaign signs for the opposite Congressional candidate. We accompanied these poo-rilla attacks with “redirecting” the yard signs to more favorable locations.
Columbine made just about every bully in Colorado think twice. I’m serious.
Autz:
From your link, this applies to ELF and their classification as terrorists.
“(V) The use on any–”
“(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device,” or
“(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.”
They are using violent means to effect a change in government or policy. That’s terrorism. They may not be trying to destroy the country or level a building, but they are terrorists. They are despicable criminals if you don’t believe in their cause, misguided radicals if you sympathize and the salt of the earth if you are with them.
However you feel about them, their actions are terrorism.
Well, you’ve got one half of it, then. However, setting a bag on fire on the porch doesn’t sound like much of a “dangerous act.” Even if it was, I sounds like it was more of vengance against people whos opinions you didn’t like. Maybe even trying to influence a single person. Or did you really think you’d be affecting a large number of voters by lighting up a bag of shit?
And having someone murdered down the block will make neighbors nervous and worried, too. That doesn’t make it terrorism. Somebody neglecting to fully complete a repair that contributes to the crash of a fully-loaded airliner is not a terrorist, even if his criminal negligence lead to many people thinking twice about flying.
Terrorism, as mentioned above, is generally defined as acts that involve direct violence or danger to people in an effort to effect social or political changes. That’s not what happened at Columbine. They didn’t go in trying to change things. Their only message was “it’s our turn now.” Close, but not quite, IMO.
Allegory is dead.
But if you murder every other male of particular ethnic persuasion who lives near your place of worship, you might be rewarded by an evacuation of said ethnic group from the general area. That’s terrorism, and it’s just like a lot of the stuff in the Bible.
How do you know their intention wasn’t to scare the crap out of bullies and jocks? What if nerds everywhere see Harris and Klebold as “freedom fighters?”
I realize that what they may be doing fits one of the dictionary definitions of terrorism, but I’d prefer not to equate what they are doing with what Al-Qaida and Hamas are doing.
I believe it waters down the seriousness of the word “Terrorism” to label the ELF terrorists.
That I would agree with, if you were specifically targeting that group.
They recorded their intentions prior to the act, or at least what they claimed to be their intentions. I don’t recall them ever even implying they hoped it would change anything. All the motivation seemed to be simply revenge-oriented, pent-up frustration, etc. Further, they didn’t target jocks or bullies durring their rampage (They spent most of their time at the library. Not exactly the best place to hunt jocks and bullies). Between their recorded words and their actions, it seems pretty clear that wasn’t what they intended… But as I said, there is some gray-area, and it does come close.
And wether nerds view them as “freedom fighters” or not is irrelevant to their actions and motivations.
Terrorism covers a very broad spectrum. In itself, it does not specifically carry any direct implication of scope. It is only the high-profile cases that give rise to the concept of terrorism only refering to the high end of the spectrum.
For example, a serial killer that goes out, breaks into the house of a person they don’t like, severely beats them, and leaves them injured to the degree that though they’ll survive for several hours, they have no chance of surviving, is a murderer. So is a person that slips that person an extremely strong sedative that puts them to sleep and stops their heart, without them even knowing it. The fact that one is significantly more brutal and violent than the other doesn’t “water down” the word murder when it’s used to refer to the lesser one.
Even among what’s commonly accepted as terrorism, there are wide degrees of variance. One attack might kill 3,000, the next might kill 3. Both are still terrorism, even if one is miniscule compared to the other.