Do they give a Nobel Prize for “attempted chemistry?” Sorry, had to use that one.
While the ELF actions being discussed here haven’t directly resulted in any deaths, other news services have included quotes about the harmful pollutants released by the burning trucks, which could cause harm to people (especially since ELF has done this repeatedly), and they’re also causing damage to the environment. A huge housing complex would probably be even worse from that standpoint. Furthermore, they’re endangering the firefighters who have to put out the results of the “freedom fighting,” and perhaps taking them away from fires which place others in danger. I’m not sure if any of that makes the label ‘terrorist’ more or less applicable, although I’m inclined to think they’re terrorists because they’re attempting to achieve a political goal through means of fear and intimidation. Also, they are CERTAINLY all guilty of extreme obnoxiousness. “I [heart] pollution?” “Fat Lazy Americans?” Sheesh. Talk about deserving a swift kick to the ass.
Also, WinstonSmith: why is it you’re assuming this is the work of kids, or white kids? This isn’t a random bunch of kids here, this is an actual organization, at least to some degree. For the same reason, it’s certainly not a prank.
No possibility of bodily…?!? You ever get sand in your eye, junior?!? HORROR OF HORROR! There’s the potential that children might DIE - HORRIBLY - from a sand wound to the eye! What is wrong with you, you cold heartless monster?!? Potential, potential, POTENTIAL!!!
And you call comparing a burning pile of poop to a multi-dozen-thousand dollar act of arson a reasonable argument?!? You hypocrite!
Bullshit. Added penalties are added onto sentences all the time. Such as the relatively recent advent of tacking on additional jail time if you use a gun in a robbery.
I don’t believe Gandhi was a terrorist, but I believe he was labeled as such by the British. It says so right here:
“There is another problem. The English branded William Wallace a terrorist. To us, he was a freedom fighter. Those who fought for American independence were demonised as terrorists by the British Crown. All citizens of British colonies who fought for independence were branded terrorists. Mahatma Gandhi was vilified for advocating passive resistance to the British Raj and jailed as a terrorist, though he was a pacifist.”
“For many decades, many Indians under the leadership of Gandhi, fought the British for independence. They used a great many tools, mostly non-violent, in forcing the British out of the Indian sub-continent. Gandhi was indeed labeled a terrorist by many British. However, when the Indians came to power in 1947, the independence movement of Gandhi transformed itself into a mature, civilized and responsible government.”
The real terrorists, of course, were the British, who cut off the thumbs of the Bengali master weavers so they couldn’t weave any more, thus eliminating the competition for the British textiles. And that my friends is why Gandhi advocated that Indians weave their own cotton cloth.
Wallace couldn’t have been branded a terrorist, the word didn’t enter the English language until 1795, so there’s strike one against your cite. Ghandi was never charged with terrorism, he was charged with sedition, there’s a difference. One can be a seditionist without being a terrorist.
No kidding. I didn’t know that. Oh wait, yes I did.
I’m not debating the British policies. Find me one primary source labeling Ghandi as a terrorist. One declaration by the British.
If I was a legitimate businesswoman targeted and attacked in this manner by a politically motivated group, I’d certainly feel terrorized. There’s no doubt in my mind that if I re-built my dealership, I might be targeted again. Or maybe my house.
IMO, ELF is a terrorist organization, and it seems so clear to me that they are I have a hard time understanding why one would think they are not. And yes, I’ve read the thread. In my area of the US, we have a legal term called a “terroristic threat”, which refers to “making an oral or written or otherwise communicated statement between two parties which threatens a criminal act committed by one party on the other”. At least, that’s what the nice police officer wrote on a complaint I made against a little freak who was harassing me.
I agree that these are terrible tactics done by people with no political savvy, tactics that hurt people without achieving anything.
THat said, I think it’s very unwise to label these attacks “terrorism.” I think that word ought to be reserved for attacks against people. Its connotations certainly involve murder. I betcha if you ask the next dozen people you see for an example of terrorism, every single person will name a crime that results in human deaths, and not a single person will mention burning down ski lodges or spraypainting SUVs.
That said, the word terrorism is in flux; it is often defined to encompass one’s political enemies while excluding one’s own acts. There’s no clear answer to this question, once you move beyond how the word is normally used and into the territory of how it ought to be used.
“I have a hard time understanding why one would think they are not.”
Because there are a lot of stupid, ignorant people out there who have a romanticized notion that it’s ok to destroy property as long as it belongs to wealthy people or faceless corporations. It’s ok to cause destruction and mayhem as long as it’s for a good cause.
Blalron quote:
"I believe it waters down the seriousness of the word “Terrorism” to label the ELF terrorists. "
Hey, every murderer doesn’t have to be Charles Manson. It’s still murder whether you kill one person or a hundred.
Look, here’s a clue for you. If you are spiking trees, firebombing cars and laboratories, throwing bricks through executives windows or lighting burning crosses on people’s doorstep and committing other felonies in the name of some stupid cause, you are a terrorist. You are a shitty poser pussy JV league terrorist but you are still using terror and fear to intimidate people so you can achieve some political goal. The fact that goal is to save the rainforest or the spotted owl is irrelevant.
I’m not a lawyer so I can’t tell you what the legal definition of terrorism is. It seems stupid to even have “terrorism” laws. It’s already illegal to kill people and light buildings on fire. What’s the point of assigning some label?
Piffle, to quote elucidator. Not everything evil in the world is terrorism; not everything in the world besides terrorism is good.
If I break into your house, steal your stereo, shave your cat, and pee on your geraniums, then I’ve committed burglary, larceny, vandalism, and animal cruelty, all crimes. I’ve not committed terrorism.
I don’t think burning SUVs fits most folks’ instincts about terrorism. I think when most people use the word terrorism, they are referring to crimes that attempt to murder human beings. Again, if you go around and ask the next dozen people you meet to provide you with an example of terrorism, you’re unliklely to get one person who mentions a crime that doesn’t cause physical injury to a human.
That doesn’t mean political vandalism or sabotage is hunky-dory; it just means that it doesn’t fall under the general usage of the word “terrorism.” Don’t try to distort what people are saying.
And not every terrorist is a guy name Achmed with a ratty beard who blows up airports.
It is the polical intimidation and coercion that makes such acts “terrorism” and not mere felonies. If the ELF blows up a building or a bridge in the middle of the night when no one is around, is it still a terrorist act even if no one is killed?
It depends - did you do all those things because I was Jewish? Did you target me because I was a lesbian? Or did you decide I “needed to pay” for the “crime” of being wealthy(ier)"? Class envy and class hatred are alive and well, and can be found everywhere.
I feel that at heart some (not yourself) who would normally classify this as terrorism are really just glad that some more evil SUVs and their promoters (dealers, owners, manufacturers, whatever and whoever is in the SUV delivery device chain…) They really would love to see those Evil SUV Owners (ESO’s) pay, and really aren’t thinking too much past that dirty little bit of class envy schadenfreude.
I wonder if some might change their opinions if “SUV” was replaced with “VW Beetle”. Not that I would expect anyone here to admit it if it did make a difference, but it’s an interesting bit of pondering.
Question: A man runs around a city burning unoccupied synagogues to the ground, but no one is injured. He also spray paints “Jews get out” on the grass in front. Is he a terrorist?
Answer: I feel that very few are going to answer “no”.
msmith537 they seem to favor arson over bombing, fyi.
You know I’m usually really good with analogies but for some reason I have a hard time equating a place or worship with an SUV dealership. Also with comparing a call for banishment with a demand for a change in consumption practices. Maybe you could paraphrase your analogy?
Also I’ll ask you what I asked someone else last page, I forget who:
Do you consider hate crime laws to be anti-terrorism laws? Just curious, I’m not trying for a point.
Second: if the antisemite is being careful to burn down unoccupied synagogues, not terrorism. Spraypainting “Jews get out”? Not terrorism.
Spraypainting “Jews get out or I kill you next time”? Terrorism. It’s a threat to harm human beings, and therefore crosses the line.
Burning down synagogues is, of course, illegal and unethical. Not everything illegal and unethical = terrorism. Terrorism = killing (or trying to kill, or maybe threatening to kill) innocent people in order to apply political pressure.
Again, ask a dozen people for an example of a terrorist act. I betcha every single one mentions an act that involves killing civilians in order to apply political pressure; I betcha that if you don’t prep them for the question, not a single one will mention property damage intended to apply financial pressure.
Not that property damage is ethical or legal in such circumstances. It simply doesn’t fall in the normal usage of the word “terrorism”, and any effort to redefine terrorism is revisionist linguistics.
Fair enough, Daniel. I respect your views, even though I still disagree with them. It is clear there will be no meeting of the minds between us on this particular subject.
And that’s fine: it’s a quintessential argument over semantics, the most useless kind of argument :).
The only reason I think it’s important is because we’re fighting a War on Terrorism; if we start including political vandalism in our Wartime opponents, things get weird. I believe that, while law enforcement should certainly be paying attention to politically-motivated property damage, it should take a lower priority than mass murder; calling it something other than terrorism will help keep priorities straight.
Phoenix Dragon, msmith537, Marley23 and the rest - yes siree bob.
Also, we do not know whether or not ELF/ALF actions have been so far fatality free. We only that they haven’t stepped up to take credit for an fatal arson fires or bombings.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CarnalK * msmith537 they seem to favor arson over bombing, fyi.
A minor distinction.
The fact that it is a SUV store, synogogue, abortion clinic, embassy or research lab is incidental. The objective is to intimidate. To terrorize people into not buying/selling SUVs, attending services, seek abortions, test monkeys, or get out of the country.
I think there is a subtle distinction but also some overlap. Terrorism implies a certain systematic planning. Targets are selected for a reason. Many hate crimes also could qualify as terrorism but many are acts of passion or impulse (like jumping a black guy because he’s in your neighborhood)
Well i don’t think the distinction is all that minor, and seeing as how that “fighting ignorance” thing is in the old website title.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would accept this. A research lab or an SUV dealership simply does not make the personal connection that the others on the list have. That is why attacks on those structures can cause “terror” but an attack on SUVs mainly causes frustration,anger and costs. Again, there stated aim is to actually stop and distrupt environmental polluters not to intimidate people. From their website:
Sorry, had to use that one.