Domestic Terrorists

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
And I applaud you for your even handed consideration of the facts and the consistency with which you apply your standards. We are in agreement!

This rarity has been marked in my calendar.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'm all for protesting if you don't like something. Lobbying to change it, even great civil disobedience if need be provided theres no harm presented to people..... but firebombs?

Thats way too far.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by eric
You know it is not their cause with which I have a problem, hell I would probably support many of their stances. My problem is when individuals and organizations take matters of justice into their own hands, I condem the police for this as well as these people.

Very true Eric but the "environmentalist" tag is misleding.

"Clean water is one of the most fundamental necessities and no one can be allowed to privatize it, commodify it, and try and sell it back to us," the group said in a statement.
"Earth Liberation Front Guidelines:
To inflict economic damage on those profitting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment. "

They seem to have a problem with profit being made from a natural resource. Inflicting economic damage to a bottling water facility? A botted water facility is hardly destructive or exploiting the natural environment.

 

[eric]

Oh I agree MT, what I was trying to say is I do believe we need to care for our environment. Believe me I am not freaked out over the issue, I just think with some careful planning we can find ways to fulfill our industrial needs without overt harm to the environment. As far as bottling water for profit, I have no problem with this at all, or profiting from environmental resources in general, as long at it does not do serious harm to the environment.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
I haven't seen where they are threatening people with death. And I haven't seen where anyone has died of their actions. My understanding is that they take care to aviod hurting anyone. They do damage property, and unless I'm wrong about their modus operandi, they would more appropriately be labeled vandals.

Jim, have you seen something about death threats that I haven't?

Who the heck to you think has to put out fires started with excellerants....trees?

I also think it's probably that people have died as a result of their actions...I don't know for sure but starting fires, bashing in SUV's, etc. sounds like an accident waiting to happen. There are laws against even accidentally causing harm or death to others.

Oh, and again, I'll post the definition of terrorism:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion


and the definition of terror:

1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>


Where does it say that to be a terrorist you have to cause the death of others???

 

[Bry]

Thanks, Moi, I see you have some strong opinions on this issue too.

Yeah, I know the dictionary definition of "terrorist". I think 150 definitions have been posted on this board alone. To sum up my take on the word posted on other threads, the word is used usually to promote a negative bias. By the definition you've given, the US Government is world terrorist #1. I think you may have noticed that I do not take language and words lightly, in fact I've made a career of them. On the other threads, I think at least a consensus has been reached that the word "terrorist" should not be used lightly.

To further this point, I will counter with a definition of "vandal": A person who willfully or maliciously destroys public or private property." Now, don't you think that definition is a little more precise in this case than "anyone who uses fear for purposes of coersion"?

Apart from the symantic point, as I already said on this thread, I agree that these activities are and should be treated as criminal. I do not think that our response to these groups should be similar to our response to, oh, Al Qaeda for instance.

Now that I have repeated the points I have made on this thread, do you still find something in my stance with which you would like to disagree? Or are you just spouting off again in a condescending manner because you were just reading a different conversation you didn't like? Really, this could get tiresome...

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
Thanks, Moi, I see you have some strong opinions on this issue too.

Yeah, I know the dictionary definition of "terrorist". I think 150 definitions have been posted on this board alone. To sum up my take on the word posted on other threads, the word is used usually to promote a negative bias. By the definition you've given, the US Government is world terrorist #1. I think you may have noticed that I do not take language and words lightly, in fact I've made a career of them. On the other threads, I think at least a consensus has been reached that the word "terrorist" should not be used lightly.

To further this point, I will counter with a definition of "vandal": A person who willfully or maliciously destroys public or private property." Now, don't you think that definition is a little more precise in this case than "anyone who uses fear for purposes of coercion"?

Apart from the semantic point, as I already said on this thread, I agree that these activities are and should be treated as criminal. I do not think that our response to these groups should be similar to our response to, oh, Al QED for instance.

Now that I have repeated the points I have made on this thread, do you still find something in my stance with which you would like to disagree? Or are you just spouting off again in a condescending manner because you were just reading a different conversation you didn't like? Really, this could get tiresome...

I don't think that posting the definition of terrorism and terror is condescending when you yourself asked the question to which I replied. Yes, the ELF organization is a terrorist organization. Obviously no one here is implying that they rise to the level of sophistication that Al queda does.

I don't know that these ELF people have or have not killed someone but that distinction is irrelevant to me in defining them as terrorists. As such, they should be subject to the same criminal sanctions as other terrorist groups. If indeed it is found that someone has died as a result of their actions, they deserve the same penalty as those who are found guilty in the 911 bombings and other actions which resulted in deaths of innocents.

That's not semantics, that's just the criminal justice system at work.

What's tiring is people trying to make distinctions for murderers because "their hearts were in the right place". Whatever happened to using the laws of a country to stamp out injustice? If you don't like the way a corporation does business, get on the board or vote for officials who will change the laws so that what they do is illegal and then vote for judges who will enforce the laws.

You don't put innocent lives in danger because the water should be free or whatever similar reason.

 

[Bry]

If you mean that ELF activists who set fire to a target should be treated as more than the arsonists that they are, then we do have something to disagree on.

Our laws are designed to make the punishment for a crime proportionate to the crime commited. Noone from ELF has attemted to fly an airplane into a skyscraper. If one person died as the result of an action commited by ELF, I should think he would be tried for conspiracy and manslaughter. I don't know what the hijackers on 9/11 would have been tried for had they miraculously survived, but I tend to think it would be and should be more. It's all a matter of scale, Moi, which I think you probably understand. I suspect that we still have nothing to disagree about here.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
If you mean that ELF activists who set fire to a target should be treated as more than the arsonists that they are, then we do have something to disagree on.

I think if it's proven that they used their tactics in way to send fear throughout the organizations they attack, that they should be charged as terrorists. Maybe the punishment handed down should be less than those who kill daily, but it's still terrorism. A plain 'ol arsonist? I disagree. When someone burns their house down to get out of debt, that's an arsonist. When that same person burns down the mortgage company because they disagree with their policies and want to force change, that's terrorism.

These people aren't doing their work only to stop the actions of these companies, but also to send out a message about their intentions. Crossing that line as an organized group makes them terrorists.

There's been so much talk lately about terrorism in the Middle East that it gives that word a whole new meaning. One doesn't need to blow themselves up or crash planes to be a terrorist. There are just worse forms of terrorism.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bry
If you mean that ELF activists who set fire to a target should be treated as more than the arsonists that they are, then we do have something to disagree on.

Our laws are designed to make the punishment for a crime proportionate to the crime commited. Noone from ELF has attemted to fly an airplane into a skyscraper. If one person died as the result of an action commited by ELF, I should think he would be tried for conspiracy and manslaughter. I don't know what the hijackers on 9/11 would have been tried for had they miraculously survived, but I tend to think it would be and should be more. It's all a matter of scale, Moi, which I think you probably understand. I suspect that we still have nothing to disagree about here.

The person in Virginia who was charged with the 911 attacks is being charged with first degree murder, I believe. I'm not exactly sure. In my scenario, the ELF person who killed somone would also be charged with murder. There are very few differences in the punishment of someone who intentionally causes death and someone who knowingly does something that could and does cause death. It's a bit different than someone who just recklessly causes death (i.e., someone pushes a woman down the stair without realizing she's 8 mos. pregnant and kills the unborn would be guilty of recklessly causing the death; someone who torches a building knowing that fireman might die doing their duty knowingly causes their death). The slight difference between the sentences of life without parole and life imprisonment are so small as to be irrelevant.

 

[tybalt]

the definition of terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Does the willful destruction of property qualify as terrorism, or does it also need to have some political message behind it to be a terrorist act? If there is a distinction between vandalism and politically motivated vandalism, is it not the motive that makes the latter more heinous?

For example, is there a distinction between rioters (as terrorists or non-terrorists) who destroy property because:
a.) they oppose US involvement in Iraq
b.) they are voicing their discontent of a local drinking ordinance
c.) they are celebrating their sports team's victory?

Who is a terrorist?
a.) the kid on our block who spraypaints graffiti on buildings?
b.) the kid who spraypaints racial slurs on the sidewalks?
c.) the kid who egged my house three nights in a row after I caught him spraypainting our neighborhood?
d.) me, for telling that kid I would call the police if I ever saw him with a spraypaint can?
e.) me, for filing a lawsuit against the kid's parents after I caught him egging my house?
f.) My neighbor for threatening me with a knife unless I dropped the lawsuit?

What about the company that files frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against another company unless they accept a low buyout offer?

In fact, isn't the term "terrorist" just a term used to describe a person or organization that we disagree with?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by tybalt
In fact, isn't the term "terrorist" just a term used to describe a person or organization that we disagree with?

No, you disagree with someone over who has a better football team.

You prosecute those who firebomb/vandalize/kill to incite fear while furthering their personal agendas.

 

[tybalt]

Are ELF activists really responsible for this well-publicized vandalism?

It is not unusual for businesses to stage “fires” to collect insurance. There are strong indications that the arson at Two Elks lodge in Vail a few years ago (which was attributed to ELF) was perpetrated by Vail interests. The fire:
a.) put the environmentalists on the defensive, as they were filing complaints with the US Forest Service that Vail was violating key environmental laws
b.) increased popular support for Vail at a time in which Vail was seeking a controversial expansion project
c.) provided Vail with a huge insurance windfall that helped them build a bigger lodge.

However, it seems to me that “Conservative” interests could be behind the recent surge in domestic “environmental” terrorism. It seems like a strategy to demonize environmentalism in the same way that they demonized the word “Liberal.” Doesn’t this seem a lot like “Newspeak” from Orwell’s 1984?

Orwell’s 1984 also depicted a nation that was always embroiled in foreign wars. Domestically, there were nameless, faceless “terrorists” who were in fact sponsored by the government. This was done to perpetuate a sense of crisis among the people (like a color-coded warning system). The current administration will be remembered for the deep erosion in civil liberties as a result of the perceived need for safety. In a related vein, consider the similarity between the so-called ELF incidents and Hitler’s burning of the Reichstadt building in 1933 to win the support of the German people. Can the same support be generated for anti-environmental policies? I guess we'll find out.

Is it just me, or is America showing a poison in the body politic similar to that of 1930's Germany?

 

[jimnyc]

That's a lovely theory, too bad ELF takes credit for most of their terror acts.

 

[5stringJeff]

Re: terrorist vs. vandal

I think a vandal is someone who defaces/destroys property for no real reason except that it's fun to them, or they just don't like the property owner. Terrorism, on the other hand, is meant to coerce someone into changing their behavior. That is why I think that the ELF is a terrorist organization, and not just vandals.

 

[tybalt]

I think a vandal is someone who defaces/destroys property for no real reason except that it's fun to them, or they just don't like the property owner. Terrorism, on the other hand, is meant to coerce someone into changing their behavior. That is why I think that the ELF is a terrorist organization, and not just vandals.

In my town, there is a group of women who vandalize stop signs when they stencil the word "RAPE" under "STOP." According to your definition, these women are a terrorist organization.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by tybalt
In my town, there is a group of women who vandalize stop signs when they stencil the word "RAPE" under "STOP." According to your definition, these women are a terrorist organization.

I don't think that they are terrorists because I don't think they are writing the word "rape" to put fear or coerce people. They are exercising their right to speak out...poorly, I'd say by defacing public property. But their motive is to get people to stop raping, that's not the same as someone who's committing a felony towards people who obey the law.