ALF and ELF are terroists, not because they kill people, but because they use fear and terror to get their points across. If you want something done, get your lawmakers to do it for you. Sending threatining notes, or making threatening phone calls makes you of the same type as AlQ, tho not quite as bad.
BTW…I cannot stand ALF. Any nitwits who put the life of a freaking Rat against the life of human does not have my respect at all.
It is remarkable that nobody has changed their minds.
In fact it seems that those who claim EF! and its political front, PETA are not terrorists have one by one dropped off the discussion. We are now largely talking to ourselves.
Once again, I find this to be disturbing behavior. Rather than stay in the political discussion, they have withdrawn to themselves.
I don’t want to go on a Yoda-like rant here, but from this isolation grows the hatred of society that breed ‘real’ terrorism.
It is only a matter of time before Animal Rights people commit some horrid crime killing dozens of people.
They’re absolutely terrorists. It seems to me the only reason there is any debate about whether the ALF and ELF are terrorist groups is the lack of killing people. Operation Rescue and similar groups have DEFINITELY killed people and without a doubt use intimidation and violence as tools to advance their political tools. By what definition of the term can they not be considered terrorists?
When you put it that way, it seems silly to even introduce the terrorist label into the conversation about ALF and ELF. After all, “killing people” defines the whole issue, doesn’t it?
I would assert that society generally recognizes a qualitative difference between vandalism and murder. That they aren’t just varying degrees of the same behavior. To call a group of vandals “terrorists” is just a plain misnomer. And it’s pretty weak to try to claim that a vandal could accidentally kill or harm somebody, therefore they’re a terrorist. Anybody in the course of engaging in any activity could accidentally kill somebody.
The bottom line is, do they actually inspire terror? Do they make people fear for their lives, or for the lives of their loved ones? In the case of the ELF and ALF, no, they don’t. They’re organized vandals, not terrorists.
Not at all. As quoted in Dog80’s post, the FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The FBI further classifies terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base and objectives of the terrorist organization. "
The fact that the ALF and ELF haven’t managed to kill anyone to date is not really important. (And who knows - any one of their stunts could kill a worker who happens to be in a building, or a firefighter who has to come put out a blaze they start.) It might matter in terms of degree - certainly they’re not as bad as Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or Operation Rescue - but not in terms of the label.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3432531.stm
This is exactly the kind of result the “activists” had in mind when they performed those acts of violence. :mad: I don’t see why they should not be categorized as terrorists.
Yes, I acknowledge there’s an argument that derives from a literal reading of that FBI definition. It’s very broad. But at the same time, the FBI in its 1999 report on terrorim (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf), says “There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism.” There’s room for interpretation.
I would argue that the bar on what should be considered “terrorism” has been raised since then. Political and social objectives shouldn’t be the thing that defines terrorism. It should be terror.
The definition is basically ‘using terror to achieve political and social objectives.’ Al Qaeda has been around for almost a decade, and they were killing people by the hundreds long before they ‘raised the bar,’ by which I guess you mean September 11th. Groups like the ALF exist to intimidate people who do animal testing, because those people are the targets of their attacks. Look at scr4’s link.
I think any reasonably intelligent, sensible person can see they are terrorists. This is one of the few threads where I think the point has been successfully to the exclusion of all others. Though I think it was a fairly obvious question.
I agree with all of the points declaring them terrorists. Their extreme dogmatism about their silly views with no room for compromise makes them nutbags enough. But to blow things up and vandalize property certainly makes them terrorists.
Does their brand of persuasion cause fear and terror? Of course it does! How could you be working as a scientist in these labs and not be scared? How could this fear not permeate the general environment of places where these wackos attack the most?
As cited, they don’t great political influence, but they certainly do have some.
To refer to a group of arsonist as simple “vandals” is pretty darn misleading. These aren’t people who just break a few windows and spray paint slogans on the walls. They burn buildings down to the ground in an effort to cause as much economic harm as possible. It is also extremely disingenous to say that “Anybody in the course of any activity could accidentally kill someone.” Don’t you think an activity like arson is more likely to kill someone then spray painting a wall or throwing a rock through a window?
They’re terrorist. In some states you are permitted to use deadly force to stop people from committing arson. They’re not just a bunch of vandals they’re pretty dangerous people. Are they as dangerous as other terrorist organizations? No, right now they’re not. I don’t doubt that they’ll kill someone one of these days nor do I doubt they’ll create more radical elements.
Marc
Where did you get this definition?
Several people have already pointed out to you that attacks on people are not central to the FBI’s definition. There has been no internationally agreed-upon definition of what it is, that much I know, but I don’t know which ones are being floated, or which of them state that people must be trageted for an act to be declared “terrorism”. I’m curious to know who is saying what.
Which brings me to my question–whose definition were you using?
Concur. It would seem some are making the argument that they are not terrorists yet. I see no reason to let them do what they do until they do manage to raise up a Tim McViegh or Osama Bin Laden.
It is an issue but one that needs to be addressed rationally. Some doushebag in my old neighborhood protested the development of six new units out where my parents live. Well now because of him, it opened the way for 20 new low-income units to be built. Much as I would like to Molotov his house and the new development, I don’t have the right to do that. The fact is, the population keeps growing and we need to put people somewhere otherwise housing costs will be even more ridiculous than they are now.
[QUOTE=unquiet_soul]
I dont agree that they are terrorists though… Goodness a burnt up hummer dealership is NOTHING compared to 9/11 or oklahoma city. Terrorist attacks always include PEOPLE. Does the loss of an SUV dealership really destroy the quality of our lives? It doesnt even affect the dealership(Insurance) Sure they are Vandals, extremists, criminals, maybe even insane but do you think that we should just label terrorist so casually? QUOTE]
Yes. It costs all of us money. Our insurance premiums go up. People have to worry about psychopaths burning their cars because they aren’t powered by hemp and self-righteousness. It is an attempt to take away peoples right to CHOOSE which vehicles they drive. If a person wants to pay higher gas prices for a vehicle that needs to lanes to park, that’s their business and no fascist hippie has the right to take that away.
That made me laugh, msmith. Talk about incongruity! “That fascist Abbie Hoffman…” It’s like saying “That pinko treehugger Nixon.”
Anyway…
I believe the FBI’s definition of terrorists that has been cited here is too broad. Calling someone a “terrorist” in this day and age in the United States carries a lot of baggage. Your home could be searched without your knowledge. You could be arrested and denied access to a lawyer. You could be tried before a military tribunal and executed at the fiat of the President. Do any of you here think these are appropriate steps to be taken against either ELF or Operation Rescue?
Once again, I believe these people are criminals, I believe their actions are immoral and wrongheaded, I believe every legal effort should be taken to stop them, and I believe that they should be punished to the full extent of the law when caught. But none of these groups have undertaken any operations designed to cause the death of a large number of people and I don’t think any of them are particuarly likely to. Both the ELF and the ALF have attempted to design their operations to avoid causing death, and Operation Rescue says they’re trying to save lives, don’t they? When you catch the ALF with an ammonium nitrate truck bomb, I’ll call them terrorists.
Paul, you’re right. I guess I am saying “they’re not terrorists yet.” But then again, neither are you and neither am I. The biggest danger here is the expansion of the definition of terrorism to include everyday crimes. Is the teenager with a pipe bomb a terrorist? Is every arsonist a terrorist? Is, as msmith asserts, anyone who “costs all of us money” by raising our insurance premiums–a category which includes smokers and parents of teenage children, not to mention insurance adjusters–a terrorist?
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
I believe the FBI’s definition of terrorists that has been cited here is too broad. Calling someone a “terrorist” in this day and age in the United States carries a lot of baggage. Your home could be searched without your knowledge. You could be arrested and denied access to a lawyer. You could be tried before a military tribunal and executed at the fiat of the President. Do any of you here think these are appropriate steps to be taken against either ELF or Operation Rescue?/QUOTE]
Yes. Yes I do.