Eh. I don't mind a prefix to make clear you're talking about a subgroup... hence, talking about "Islamo-fascism" is useful to make clear that there are minor differences between bin Laden and Hilter.

Of course, the AP doesn't consistently refer to other forms of terrorism by any form of that word. If there are no other terrorists besides the ELF, why do you need to make clear they're a special kind of terrorist?

It's the same thing as hate crimes. I don't care why you killed that person. I don't care whether they are the wrong race or just looked at you funny. A crime is a crime.

The same thing goes for eco-terrorism. It's like an explanation of why they're terrorists. Fuck your cause. I don't care why you blow shit up. I just want you rubbed out, asshole.

I'm just glad they used the word at all, with or without the prefix. I just wish we could get video footage of these guys trying to explain to the other guys in the federal penitentiary why they're there.

It has the advantage of giving environmentalists some bad press, of which I approve.

I am very surprised that they used the word ecco-terrorism. I would expect they would use ecco-dissident. Now if we could only get them to call Al Qaida terrorists.

How can they be for the environment when the fires they start cause pollution? How can they be for the environment when the SUV factories and logging facilities they burn down will be rebuilt again, causing more resources to rebuild than it would have cost by actively seeking policy change?

I know, I know. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with these idiot-savants, but still.

I think we all know the type that turns out to be an "ecoterrorist".

Pompous, self absorbed, socialist, femme, pale college boys who spell their name wrong.

"Where ya going with that milk jug full of gas, Khrys?"

It's not a media conspiracy. The FBI calls them eco-terrorists.

What bothers me most about these idiots is that they probably go home after torching the Lexus dealership and put the empty milk jug in the recycling bin.

Saw a History Channel program on the Presidents last night where a historian described the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan as the "Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party." Using the same description for eco-terrorists works for me.

What do you call a bunch of people who do this:

Assholes.

Eventually, their antics will end up killing people. Besides the car dealerships set on fire, they have torched a number of large housing developments.

Yeah, I'm okay with eco-terrorist in this case too. But I would prefer the alternative of "violent fucking luddite shitbags".

No, they're eco-freedom-fighters!

Damn that girl in the pink Reagan shirt is hot.

What about "vandals"?

Aren't terrorists supposed to inspire "terror"?

In high school, we used to put m-80s in piles of poop to make them splatter. One part vandalism, one part juvenile stupidity, but tons of fun.

If I grew up these days, I'd likely be labeled a "feco-terrorist."

It's one thing to hurt people and create panic. It's another thing to vent your misguided frustrations by wrecking someone's stuff. Just make them pay for damaged property and lost profits/wages. Charge them for arson or whatever it is. And then give them their sentence.

It's not terrorism. It's just too pathetic and unscary to merit such a title. We should reserve the title of "terrorist" for people who are actually kill people or want to kill people. It's like prosecuting meth dealers using anti-terror laws, they might be a lot of things, but it's a lie to call them terrorists.

It's the same as defining everything from looking at a pretty girl to refusing to show "Brokeback Mountain" under the umbrella of "hate crimes." It stretches the meaning of the law to punish people for their opinions rather than their actions and the consequences of their actions. It gives prosecutors special tools and loopholes so they can prosecute the crime differently because of a person's motives and opinions. Which I don't think the government should get too involved in when it comes to American citizens.

BT, they're using violence to advance a political agenda. In America they're using arson and firebombings on a massive scale; in England they're actually stalking and terrorizing the employees and management of companies that use animal testing. The stated message is that violence towards those who disagree with them is not only acceptable, it's laudable.
If this isn't terrorism, what is?

I call them Homer Simpson's mom.

If they are stalking actual human beings, that is certainly terrorism. If their crimes are aimed at people, that is terrorism.

But I think that even coordinated efforts to destroy property to forward a political agenda seem to be a different sort of crime. For example, the government created the absurd FACE law to argue that protesters obstructing the entrances of abortion clinics constitute a special kind of crime. And they use RICO laws to go after pro-life activists groups to argue that their coordinated efforts to advance their political agenda amount to racketeering. Already, the radical pro-choice activists call all pro-lifers terrorists... I dread the day that anti-terror laws are used to punish people who oppose abortion because they are using illegal tactics (civil disobedience) to "advance a political agenda."

If someone wants to spray paint on a clinic and do their time for it as an act of civil disobedience, that isn't terrorism. But some people would say it is and would try to put these people away for life, punish all of their associates, and then start rounding up people who sympathize with these ideas.

I'm not saying these folks might not be terrorists, but I worry that there is a zeal to apply the law too loosely just to see them nailed. But laws aren't supposed to be about vengeance or political ideologies or emotions.

My Pet Jawa got an Islamofascist terrorist arrested! Holy crap! Wow! Check it out!

If you wake up in the middle of the night and find your neighborhood on fire because of some enviro-nut, then it's safe to call it terrorism. NPR had some guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center today saying "Yeah, it's bad, but it's just property so it's not as bad as blowing up the Murrah Building, so it's not that big a deal". Not exact words obviously, but pretty damned close.

BT,

While I see your point, I think it is a stretch to compare spray painting an abortion clinic with planting incendiary devices.

Would you call an anti-abortion nutcase who firebombed an abortion clinic off hours a terrorist?

I would, as the act is intended, it appears, to isnpire terror.

Same goes for a KKK group burning a cross in someone's lawn.

I think we can safely call these environmental nutjobs terrorist. I an not, however, for prosecuting them differently than a run of the mill arsonist trying to cheat his insurance company.

Buncha spoiled little rich kids looking to puff themselves up. Egoterrorism is more like it.

Hey, I like that. Is it original? [Googles] Nah, 'course not.

The problem with labeling these individuals "ecoterrorists" is you create the possibility of confusing them with "economic terrorists."

You want to create real terror? Send Alan "boom and bust" Greenspan back for another term.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

It comes as no surprise that you idiots do not know the difference between terrorism and sabotage.

What is the difference?

The terrorists target people they murder people intentionally.

Environmental saboteurs do not target people, they target property.

"Look, it is just a matter of time before these environmental whacko's start killing people. Who knows, it may be by accident, but once the blow has been struck, who knows what will follow."

Bullshit! this is a slippery slope my "friend"
Highly ILLogical!

ProJecKt2501,

When trees are spiked, knowing the risk this puts loggers at, that's terrorism.

It comes as no surprise that you idiots do not know the difference between terrorism and sabotage.

Perhaps you should avail yourself of a dictionary.

Sabotage is terrorism you moron. Terrorists murder and maim, are those who only maim less terroristic? No. Terrorism is a methodology and, once pervasive, an ideology. Sabotage is part of the methodology. Al Qaeda was as interested in the economic damage done by 9/11 as the deaths of civilians, police, and rescue workers.

I hope like hell that the FBI is keeping close tabs on these guys.

Looks like we're going to need some more FBI guys.

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

sabotage - a deliberate act of destruction or disruption in which equipment is damaged

ProJecKt2501 -

I am pro-abortion. I sure as hell would think its terrorism if some group blew up/ burned down a number of abortion clinics during off hours. That group would be using violence to discourage citizens from participating in a legal activity - effectively making their own laws.

How is that different than a string of attacks against housing developments, SUV dealerships, etc?

So you want us to accept your fabricated definitions rather than the definition quoted above?

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 08:11 PM

Nobody is interested in your personal definitions of words.

Words have definitions for a reason.

Bob Munck,

Your prev comment does raise a q: is it better to put a little extra effort into stamping out eco-terrorism now, before it can recruit and grow more, even at the expense of a little extra manpower working on AQ-style terrorism?

Depends on the growth projections for eco-terrorism, and the rate of diminishing returns on the anti-AQ manpower, I guess.

Posted by geoff at January 20, 2006 08:19 PM
terrorism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=terrorism&mode=
sabotage
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/?Word=sabotage&mode=

ProJecKt2501 -

So instead of looking using logic, discussion, debate to explore the issue, we are going to definition shop?

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

You don't believe deliberate, large scale burning down of property is an attempt to intimidate, coerce, or instill fear?

These guys aren't terrorists.. they're vandals. Punish them for what they've done, but let's not diminish what real terrorism is by including 'eco-terrorism'...

As posted here, go ask an Israeli if they equate setting fire to some SUVs with blowing up a market. Ask yourself whether the shock you felt on 9/11 is the same as how you felt when you heard that some crazies broke into a lab and set free some mice... assuming of course you even heard of the lab break-ins and the arsons.

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 08:39 PM

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians...

Environmentalists do NOT target civilians for death, terrorists DO.
What part do you not understand?

"...let's not diminish what real terrorism..."

Posted by steve sturm at January 20, 2006 08:48 PM

I strongly agree!

steve sturm

I haven't made my mind up about the issue. Obviously, what they've done is less severe than any act that has resulted in loss of life.

On the other hand, "vandals" doesn't seem sufficient. First off, what if the culprits aren't members of a Germanic tribe;-)

If the mob blows up a business to make clear to everybody that they have to pay protection money - is that simply vandalism? I don't think so. Its a shakedown, with the property destruction designed to instill fear.

If some white supremacists burn a cross in front of a black person's house, is that merely trespassing/property destruction?

Great, first I thought it was ridiculous to complain about adding "eco-" to "terrorism," now I have to go the other way and defend the application of "terrorism" in any sense to these people.

In his testimony here, John Lewis of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division does a good job of outlining differences and similarities between different types of terrorists, and includes right-wing extremists, left-wing extremists, and eco-terrorists within the broad category of "domestic terrorism."

Domestic terrorism involves acts of violence that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, committed by individuals or groups without any foreign direction, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Makes sense to me.

"Environmentalists do NOT target civilians for death, terrorists DO.
What part do you not understand?"

The sticking point seems to be that you are defining violence as an attempt to kill/physically injure people, while I'm mulling whether the large scale property damage is violence (intimidating, coercvie, instilling fear).

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 09:10 PM

"The sticking point seems to be that you are defining violence..."

NO, I am NOT defining "violence"

I am defining “terrorism” and, the things environmentalists are accused of doing do NOT fit the definition of "terrorism" therefore it is NOT terrorism. Using the term terrorism in this way diminishes what terrorism really IS.

Posted by Hubris at January 20, 2006 09:05 PM

Of course anything an authority figure says makes sense to you!

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

So you find definitions in a free online dictionary that can't even spell "intimidation" correctly? I'm sticking with American Heritage. Or with the Oxford English Dictionary:

"a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."

It is quite clear that terrorism does not necessarily have to be directed against people. Ecoterrorism is an attempt to manipulate people through intimidation and violence - it is certainly terrorism.

He is right. They are burning and blowing up stuff peacefully, much the same way a" bio saboteurist" would.

So Projekt, what is your definition of an "environmentalist"?

ProJecKt2501 -

You put up a definition of terrorism. I'm discussing (not stating) whether their actions meet this definition of terrorism

Early on in this exchange, you slapped me down pretty hard stating that no one cares about my personal definition of words. Since then I've worked only with your definition of terrorism. Whether you want to admit it or not though, you are defining violence as targeting civilians for death. I'm wondering whether that is too restrictive.

Frankly, I'm the one willing to discuss the issue, and you are the one flatly asserting that they are not terrorists. I've already conceded that they are different than groups who deliberately target human beings for death/injury.

I had acquaintences die in 9/11 and a close friend who survived with stories of horror. I'm not looking to diminish "terrorist" by applying it haphazardly, but I also don't think "vandals" captures the fact that their property destruction is designed to alter people's behavior.

Posted by geoff at January 20, 2006 09:34 PM

"a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."

According to that definition Bush's prescription drug bill is an act of terrorism.

That last one was me.

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 09:50 PM

"...you are defining violence as targeting civilians for death."

No I am saying that "Terrorism" IS violence intended to target civilians for death with a political motivation.

Environmentalist sabotage is a deliberate act of destruction or disruption in which equipment or property is damaged with a political motivation.

I know the nuance is subtle but let us strive for accuracy, shall we? Hmmm?

P.S. I picked the free dictionary because anyone can use it.

P.S. I picked the free dictionary because anyone can use it.

Also it says what I want it to. Goddamn wingnuts! I AM GOING TO SHUT DOWN THIS DEBATE AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME.

Besides when are they going to start calling this...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/dawning_1.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2005/08/sec-050822-36bd6ae4.htm

Christo-terrorism or Republo-terrorism

I picked the free dictionary because anyone can use it.

My apologies - I assumed a quick search would yield the entries here and here. Authoritative sources that anyone can use.

'"Terrorism" IS violence intended to target civilians for death with a political motivation.'

Then what counts as violence? The definitions at free dictionary are unclear

1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action, whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force
2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.

This is why I say that you are defining violence as attempting to kill civilians, and I'm wondering whether that definition is too restrictive.

A black man afraid to live in a certain town because a cross was burned in his front yard has had something done to him. Is it violence? I don't know. It's not like he was physically assaulted. However, it's certainly something more severe than if the local drunk destroys his mailbox during a bender. There's an attempt to intimidate and coerce.

"I know the nuance is subtle but let us strive for accuracy, shall we? Hmmm?"

- Is the above necessary? Have I been uncivil? Demeaning? Insulting?

Posted by Sortelli2501 at January 20, 2006 10:12 PM

HAHA
No, "and also" I did not go definition shopping I used the first one I found, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. And
I am one of the few contributing to the debate, unlike YOU!

Thanks for the irony and the laugh kid.

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 10:24 PM

Come on man...The "Hmmm?" may have been too much and a little condesending, I admit, but let's not miss the point, please.

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 10:24 PM

Come on man...The "Hmmm?" may have been too much and a little condesending, I admit, but let's not miss the point, please.

I truely respect the level of discourse between the two of us.

I just realized you changed the definition of terrorism from the dictionary one you supplied before. How can you not agree that you are defining 'violence'?

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

'"Terrorism" IS violence intended to target civilians for death with a political motivation.'

No, "and also" I did not go definition shopping I used the first one I found, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

Well, if that is indeed the case I'm sure that geoff's links have opened your eyes to a wonderful world of learning, which will see you leaving this thread humbled and appreciative with a wider understanding of exactly how wrong you were about this issue.

Sorry about the double post, an accident.

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 10:24 PM

I am not saying that destruction of property is not violence.

But it is a different kind of violence and less ethically wrong than violence directed at people, and should not be catagorized with the more serious crime.

Posted by Sortelli at January 20, 2006 10:38 PM

You say that as if you have a clue about it and actually I agree with the definitions at the freedictionary, the one geoff posted is weak and inaccurate.

the one geoff posted is weak and inaccurate.

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your position?

Isn't that begging the question?

Posted by steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 10:33 PM

Come on man I just shortened the definition and it is totally consistant with the origional, I see you are grasping at straws now so I leave you folks to ruminate on this discussion.

Thank you, good bye!

Posted by Sortelli at January 20, 2006 10:50 PM

Which part of weak or inaccurate do you not understand?

Mainly it does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die that is the MAIN source of the "TERROR" that it incurs.

Wait, don't go yet! You haven't explained to us why your definition is better than the definitions geoff provided.

I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you were just being disingenuous by using one definition to support your statement and rejecting others that contradicted it.

I don't believe I'm grasping at straws, and the definition is not consistent with the original. You are supplying your opinion of what terrorism is, and calling it a third party definition.

Moving beyond the semantics of “terrorism”. We both agree that large scale property destruction is less severe a crime than deliberately assaulting or killing people. Lets also put aside the possibility of accidental death/injury (we thought the job site was empty but it wasn’t,etc).

The thing I’m wrestling with is that the property destruction is not random isolated incidents, but is rather a deliberate attempt to intimidate people into not living somewhere, having a certain type of legal business, etc. I know I repeat the examples, but crossburning, abortion clinic destruction, etc are more than simple low level property destruction. There is a political motivation that involves preventing people from doing things that are completely legal, but that some group finds offensive/wrong/unethical.

-Do you think a cross burning is more serious than simple trespassing/ property destruction?
-Do you think the destruction of an abortion clinic is more severe a crime than simply burning down a warehouse for the fun of destruction?
-Do you think burning down a tract of homes under construction in order to discourage development is more severe a crime than if a stupid teenager did it for kicks?
-Do you think burning SUV dealerships to make a political point is more severe a crime than if my “stupid teenager” did it for kicks?

The point is, that while these actions are not as severe as killing people, they are more than simple acts of vandalism. They lay somewhere between "vandalism" and blowing people up on purpose.

I'm sorry, perhaps some lapse in your education meant that you never understood the meaning of the term "begging the question".

By making this statement:

Mainly it does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die that is the MAIN source of the "TERROR" that it incurs.

You are arguing that geoff's definition of terrorism is not accurate because it does not define terrorism. This is a circular and entirely logically invalid argument. Do you not see why?

Posted by at January 20, 2006 10:59 PM

You are correct it is not vandalism because vandalism is random.

sabotage - a deliberate act of destruction or disruption in which equipment is damaged

I agree with the definitions at the freedictionary, the one geoff posted is weak and inaccurate.

In debate, the definition from the more authoritative source prevails. Your source lacks any authority whatsoever, and the fact that you agree with it gives it no additional validity or weight.

But that doesn't really matter - if a legitimate source defines terrorism to include acts against property, then that usage can't be challenged without discrediting the original source. Which you are ill-equipped to do.

I mean, seriously, you're arguing that a definition of terrorism is inaccurate because it doesn't mention that terrorists only kill civilians.

You are doing this in order to argue that the definition of terrorist is someone who only kills civilians.

Your premise is your conclusion is your premise. You should have learned your way out of this trap in high school logic class. I hope you have enough self-esteem to back out of this corner you've painted yourself into with grace and candor.

Posted by Sortelli at January 20, 2006 11:01 PM

You are arguing that geoff's definition of terrorism is not accurate because it does not define terrorism. This is a circular and entirely logically invalid argument. Do you not see why?

Wrong I am arguing that geoff's definition is inaccurate BECAUSE it does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die.

Posted by Sortelli at January 20, 2006 11:15 PM

I NEVER said that terrorists "ONLY" civilians.

That is your straw man.

This is my post obviously

I NEVER said that terrorists "ONLY" civilians.

That is your straw man.

And you can have it.

Wrong I am arguing that geoff's definition is inaccurate BECAUSE it does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die.

And, as I have already pretty
exhaustively laid out, that is begging the question. It's not a valid argument.

But hey, put it in bold and you know what you have? An invalid argument in bold face.

Don't wriggle. Your argument is that in order for something to be called terrorism, it has to target the lives of civilians.

In the course of defending this position, you are claiming that a contray definition is inaccurate because it does not say that in order for something to be called terrorism it has to target the lives of civilians.

Look, I know you're being willfully obtuse here. I don't mind. I'm not the one who is defending an indefensible position.

ProJecKt2501 -

I'm trying to get beyond semantics, definitions, etc. I'm trying to get to some heirarchy of the severity of these acts. We agree that deliberately killing/injuring a person is the most severe. We agree that some random act of property damage is the least severe.

The reason I asked those hypothetical questions is because I'm trying to convey that in my mind the SUV burnings, cross burnings, abortion clinic bombing, etc deserve some type of punishment that goes beyond the simple act of property destruction. We can't just say, "Oh, you destroyed property worth more than x amount, which carries a sentence of y". The attempt to coerce, intimidate, etc makes the crime more severe.

Ignoring labels like terrorism, sabotage, vandalism, etc on the acts. Do you believe the hypothetical cases I listed deserve more severe punishment than "you destroyed property worth X, therefore, you get y to z years."?

Posted by Sortelli at January 20, 2006 11:24 PM

What question is it begging again?

The support for my conclusion is quite apparent.

steve_in_hb at January 20, 2006 11:29 PM

SUV burnings, cross burnings, abortion clinic bombing, are all different crimes and will have different penalties.

A cross burning is less severe than if they burned down a person of color's house for example.
I think each case should be looked at on it's own merits or lack there of and an appropriate sentence should be rendered. My whole argument is about the semantics of the post accompanying the thread.

What question is it begging again?

Wow. You really DON'T know what that means. Okay. Look. These days people often use the phrase "begging the question" to mean "bringing up the question."

The original meaning of the phrase is the name of a logical fallacy in which the premise of an argument is contained in the conclusion of the argument. Circular logic. Consider these examples:

The earth is flat because the earth is flat.

Terrorism only targets the lives of civilians because terrorism only targets the lives of civilians.

The sky is blue because the sky is blue.

The truth of such arguments is incidental to the argument itself, which is utterly meaningless. The earth is not flat (certainly not because the earth is flat), the sky is blue (but not because the sky is blue), and your definition of terrorism is not better just because it says what you want it to say, contrary definitions be damned.

The support for my conclusion is quite apparent.

Yes, the support for your conclusion is contained quite nicely in your conclusion, which is exactly the problem with your conclusion.

If you could get on board with some critical thinking, learn yourself some basic logic, you'd really come to understand a lot more about the world around you, and we'd probably be getting to the heart of your beliefs through your conversation with Steve, as opposed to getting repeatedly slapped down by me here.

You're going up against centuries of human discourse and reason here, when otherwise I'm perfectly willing to accept your idea that there is a difference between ideological attacks on property and ideological attacks on human life, and that the latter is worse.

Although I would still say, and be backed up by dictionary and legal definitions, that it's still terrorism.

The support for my conclusion is quite apparent.

Dude, you don't understand begging the question/circular reasoning. You're trying to prove your premise by assuming that your premise is already proven:

Wrong I am arguing that geoff's definition is inaccurate BECAUSE it does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die.

Try thinking of it another way:

You say 2+2=5.

I guide you to the authoritative mathematics textbook that explains 2+2=4.

You then say that the textbook must be wrong, because it doesn't indicate that 2+2=5.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You're pointing to your own premise as proof of itself.

It is simply inappropriate to say that Environmentalist sabotage is equal to or the same thing as “terrorism”.
They are not the same thing, it is disingenuous, inaccurate, and diminishes the meaning of the word “terrorism”.

Sorry for the redundancy Sortelli.

It is simply inappropriate to say that Environmentalist sabotage is equal to or the same thing as “terrorism”.

Why, because you said so? They both meet the authoritative definitions of the word.

If I say that both light blue and dark blue fall within the description "blue," does that mean I'm saying that both colors are exactly the same because they're both blue? Nope. I'm just accurately applying the meaning of a work.

That's why people add other terms to be more specific. Like, say, an "eco-" prefix.

ProJecKt2501 -

Frankly, I couldn't care less either way whether eco is put in front of terrorist if used to describe groups that commit property crimes. If they kill or assault people, then they've graduated to the big leagues and get the "terrorist" title.

To a degree your answer is a cop out, because thats where the really hard part is. We agree on the extremes of the scale, but that is easy.

I know you want to stick to the semantics, but I'm really curious about your answer to:

Do you believe the hypothetical cases I listed deserve more severe punishment than "you destroyed property worth X, therefore, you get y to z years."?

Assume just the SUV case and a group of people who burn 3 dealerships in the same county over the course of a month. Do you think they should get a punishment more severe than that produced by a simple algorithm based on property value?

It is simply inappropriate to say that Environmentalist sabotage is equal to or the same thing as “terrorism”.

Why, because you said so? They both meet the authoritative definitions of the word.

If I say that both light blue and dark blue fall within the description "blue," does that mean I'm saying that both colors are exactly the same because they're both blue? Nope. I'm just accurately applying the meaning of a word.

That's why people add other terms to be more specific. Like, say, an "eco-" prefix.

Sorry for the redundancy Sortelli.

Heck no, man. I appreciate it.

It is simply inappropriate to say that Environmentalist sabotage is equal to or the same thing as “terrorism”.
They are not the same thing, it is disingenuous, inaccurate, and diminishes the meaning of the word “terrorism”.

Well, no, because the commonality between evironmentalist sabotage and terrorism is that both are violent, unlawful attacks made with the intent to terrorize their victims into behaving a certain way.

So, yeah, eco-terrorism is terrorism, even if they haven't killed anyone yet. I certainly don't hate eco-terrorists more or the same as suicide bombers and the difference in their targets is obvious. But it's entirely appropriate to call both tactics what they are. Terrorism.

Incidentally, I have to ask, and I know your motivation doesn't actually have any bearing on your argument, but why are you so intent on separating eco-terrorism from suicide bombings?

Posted by Hubris at January 20, 2006 11:45 PM

I am going to break this down for you so it is stupid simple so you can understand.

Premise: geoff's definition does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die.
Conclusion: geoff's definition is inaccurate.

Notice there is a REASON (support) in my premise that is separate from the conclusion

I’ll put it another way as a bonus…

If geoff’s definition does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die then it is inaccurate.

Premise: geoff's definition does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die.
Conclusion: geoff's definition is inaccurate.

Notice there is a REASON (support) in my premise that is separate from the conclusion

BWAHAHAHAHA!

That is some powerful stupid simple.

Premise: geoff's definition does not mention that terrorists intentionally target civilians to die.
Conclusion: geoff's definition is inaccurate.

Baby steps now.

Please explain to us the logic that links your premise to your conclusion.

Caution: If you say "because terrorists intentionally target civilians to die", you have begged the question and made a total fool of yourself.

Premise: "ProJecKt2501" starts with the letters "ProJ"
Conclusion: ProJecKt2501 is a dumbass.

Do you see why such a construction doesn't work as a matter of logic?

Project -

Basically, you are saying you've created your definition of terrorism, geoff's doesn't match it, therefore he is wrong.

YOU decided that the definition of terrorism includes the fact that civilians are targeted to die. That is not part of the various definitions pulled from a variety of dictionaries.

In the beginning of this discussion, you accused me of making of my personal definition for words, but that is exactly what you are doing. Worse, I worked with the original definition you provided from free dictionary, then you changed it by introducing that Violence = Target civilians for death.

Noone disagrees with you that people who kill are worse than those who destroy property.

Do you see why such a construction doesn't work as a matter of logic?

Well, in defense of that statement, it could still be true.

Good point, Sortelli.

ProJecKt, I beg of you, read this whole page carefully. You will find it helpful not only within this context, but also in the future.

Bwhahahaha

All terrorists intentionally target civilians for death.
Therefore people who do not intentionally target civilians for death are not terrorists

I know what begging the question is I have been using logical terms through out the thread, in fact I was the first one on this thread to do so.

If I was begging the question I would say that...

geoff's definition is wrong because it is wrong.

Which I am NOT!

I am saying that geoff;s definition is wrong because it lacks key elements.

Is that any clearer for you giant cloudy cataract disabled people?

God I hate to do this.

Incidentally, I have to ask, and I know your motivation doesn't actually have any bearing on your argument, but why are you so intent on separating eco-terrorism from suicide bombings?

I'm pretty much on the side of ProJ here. We need to avoid devaluing the concept of terrorism, and that means we don't water it down by throwing it around loosely.

In other words, we should distinguish between terrorism and vandalism. Or between terrorists and arsonists.

The so-called "ecoterrorists" ARE NOT REALLY SCARING ANYONE. They are just pissing people off, and costing people money. In my book, that's not terrorism. Terrorists scare the shit out of people precisely because they confront us with the risk of random murder and mayhem, which is the point ProJ is trying to make.

I am saying that geoff;s definition is wrong because it lacks key elements.

And your support for the premise that the definition of "terrorism" must include those "key element" is what? That they are mentioned in the thefreedictionary.com, but not in the O-fuckin'-ED? Are you really serious?

All terrorists intentionally target civilians for death.

Consider for a moment that this claim might be false. By way of evidence, I would like to point out the following:

The current accepted definition of terrorism includes attacks on property as well as the lives of civilians. Geoff has provided examples.

In order for you to argue that this definition should not be accepted, you would need to give us some sort of compelling reason. You've already pointed out the distinction between property damage and loss of life, yet our system of law enforcement still considers both to be acts of terrorism based on their common motivation: To terrorize.

In order for you to get the definition changed, you'd have to first show how the motivation of the act is different in the two cases AND THEN you'd have to get our legal infrastructure to change its opinion, which, in this case, precedes your own.

And there, I'm afraid, you are no closer to getting your way than you are in getting the accepted spelling of the word "project" changed.

And somehow, through it all, you've managed to act as if you are the superior intellectual. Truly, ignorance is bliss.

Now, spiking trees at the cut height in an old growth forest so that loggers are scared to do their job is fairly described as terrorism. There, the criminals are actually inducing fear of personal injury or death to achieve their ends.

According to you idiots definition of terrorism scary film makers are terrorists.

We need to avoid devaluing the concept of terrorism, and that means we don't water it down by throwing it around loosely.

To use a term as defined doesn't devalue it. You're actually arguing to restrict the existing meaning. That's fine, but it's a different thing.

Project -

"geoff;s definition is wrong because it lacks key elements"

What key element? The piece about targetting civilians lives? As far as I know, you introduced that. It wasn't in the free dictionary definition you provided. I didn't see it in any of the 3rd party definitions. I believe you added that because its your personal belief.

You've removed this from the realm of logic and debate. You have a personal definition of terrorist, and "ecos" don't fill the requirements. Thats fine. However, using this personal definition, you can't authoritavely state that they aren't terrorists the way you did at the beginning of this discussion.

In my opinion, the"ecos" meet all the various THIRD PARTY definitions of terrorist that have been brought up. Admittedly, some more clearly stated acts against property "counted" than others. The definition you introduced from free dictionary strongly suggested property crimes were sufficient with the phrase "this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear".

After all this, we can agree on the following:

1) Crimes against property are less severe than crimes against people

2) Using ProJecKt2501's definition of terrorism, as requiring targeting of civilian lives, eco's aren't terrorists.

3) Using the third party definitions we looked at, eco's are either clearly or somewhat greyly terrorists, depending on the specific definition.

4) We haven't really discussed how the criminal system should treat ecos vs people killing terrorists - although I think its pretty clear their crimes are less severe.

Michael: I don't mind making the distinction. McVeigh deserved the death penalty, the morons in ELF deserve jail time.

But just because we really, really, really hate suicide bombers, that isn't a good enough reason to deny that eco-terrorists want to violently intimidate people even though they're not as good at it. Frankly, homicidal terrorists aren't that good at it either.

The act of terrorizing someone is the key here, and the intent is pretty clear.

I'm still with ProJ.

Try to distinguish between terror and economic intimidation. The former is frightening to people, the latter is annoying and costly to corporations.

According to you idiots definition of terrorism...

IT'S NOT OUR DEFINITION! IT'S THE FUCKING DEFINITION ACCORDING TO THE OED! WE'RE NOT JUST MAKING SHIT UP! PINKY SWEAR!

Make up a new word, like reallybadterrorism, and I will be happy to exclude "property damage-only" strikes from that term's definition--no problem.

Posted by Michael at January 21, 2006 12:27 AM

Absolutely!

According to you idiots definition of terrorism scary film makers are terrorists.

I'm sorry, did anyone here suggest that? Did anyone claim that film makers violently assaulted anyone?

You seem to be getting frustrated, and it's causing you to get a little unhinged. A little learning and reason might help you through that.

"According to you idiots definition of terrorism scary film makers are terrorists."

Thats silly. Below is the defintion of terrorism you gave me - who cares about the source, I'm just talking about consistency.

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

I'm asserting that the fear of losing your legally operated/owned business or home because you are doing something a group of people doesn't like is intimidating/coercive/instills fear. Obviously, a movie being scary doesn't fulfill this definition.

the latter is annoying and costly to corporations.

No, it's far worse than an economic burden. It's dangerous to the public and to the common worker. Especially when you consider that eco-terrorists stick metal spikes in trees in order to injure or kill loggers.

But again, everyone agrees that there's a difference in degree here. Don't let ProJ use this agreement to bolster his bad argument.

Michael, I can distinguish between mice and elephants, but they're both mammals. Accepting that overarching definition does not prevent one from distinguishing between two things that meet a definition.

From Wikipedia:

ter·ror (tĕr'ər) n.

Intense, overpowering fear. See synonyms at fear.

One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.

The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.

Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.

Informal. An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.

My point being, ProJ is correct. Property damage to corporate assets does not instill "intense overpowering fear." The threat of random death does.

I can distinguish between mice and elephants, but they're both mammals

But mice are small!!!! Therefore they are not mammals, they are sabotage.

Stop trying to cheapen the mammal nature of elephants!!!!!

flame: fire
flaming: really gay

Going to the root word doesn't prove anything.

Posted by Sortelli at January 21, 2006 12:39 AM

Well I'll tell you this it is late, it has been a long day, and it has been fun!

I was going to go earlier but since I've run into a wall of obstinance, now seems like a good time.

See Ya!

Peace!

Especially when you consider that eco-terrorists stick metal spikes in trees in order to injure or kill loggers.

In my earlier post, I used this same practice as an example of actual eco-terrorism.

Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.

Michael - You don't consider the threat of having your business or home burnt out as violent, intimidating, coercive?

As, I asked earlier what about cross burners, abortion clinic bombers, etc? Whatever the semantics, these people are all doing something more severe than "property crime".

Property damage to corporate assets does not instill "intense overpowering fear."

Oh? What if it was your company on the line? What if the attacks threatend put you out of business and families out on the street? Wouldn't violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, for political purposes be a little more serious when it's not The Man but your life's work on the line?

Just because it doesn't scare you, doesn't mean that it isn't still a violent act meant to intimidate someone.

Also, I am going to find Cedarford and tell him you're seeing someone else.

In my earlier post, I used this same practice as an example of actual eco-terrorism.

Wait, so now eco-terrorism is real?

*sigh* I was so holding out for the hope that ProJ was going to realize what was wrong with his position and be horribly embarassed. And once again, the power of lefty activists to evade reason has triumphed.

The so-called "ecoterrorists" ARE NOT REALLY SCARING ANYONE. They are just pissing people off, and costing people money.

Posted by Michael at January 21, 2006 12:27 AM

I disagree - who knows what effect it's having on others? To someone who's sort of a-political and also not very aware of some of the eco.... (biting my tongue, searching for a word & trying not to say eco-freaks) ... the extremely ecology-minded individuals methods/motivations are, it could be quite terrifying. And the prospect of not being able to feed your family and meet your bills when your legal livelihood goes up in a blaze of glory is fairly frightening, as well. I think the intimidation factor is the key. Is it on the scale of 9/11? Of course not. Is it terrorism? In many cases, yes, IMHO.

Incidentally, I have to ask, and I know your motivation doesn't actually have any bearing on your argument, but why are you so intent on separating eco-terrorism from suicide bombings?

Posted by: Sortelli on January 20, 2006 11:52 PM

Methinks ProJeckt2501 doth protest too much ...

Also Michael -

Project wasn't willing to throw out the semantics, and really talk about the heirarchy of severity of the various crimes. He merely wanted to assert that they weren't terrorists.

When I attempted to explore the deeper issues, I was informed that I don't get to define words. Therefore, I started working with the definition of terrorism that he provided from free dictionary. When the purely semantic arguement he wanted started getting uncomfortable for him, he changed his definition.

Frankly, the semantics are the least interesting part of the whole discussion, but thats what he wanted. Obviously, its far more interesting to talk about relative severity, even if eco's = a legal definition of terrorist is it in society's interest to treat them so, etc.

Shit. ProJ is gone and now I'm the troll.

Look, I think we can agree on this.

There is a continuum of bad acts that starts with annoying, and continues to economic intimidation, and then to alarming, and then to I'm-going-to-barf scary because I could get killed.

They are all bad acts, and somewhere on that continuum we can legitimately label the conduct as terrorism.

My only point (and ProJ's, I think, but I haven't read the whole thread), is that we should be conservative about throwing the "terrorist" label around, lest we devalue the currency. An arson that scares no one and does not even cause a material blip on the corporate balance sheet is a crime, but it is not terrorism, IMHO.

Oh? What if it was your company on the line? What if the attacks threatend put you out of business and families out on the street? Wouldn't violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, for political purposes be a little more serious when it's not The Man but your life's work on the line?

Posted by: Sortelli on January 21, 2006 12:49 AM

You said it quicker and better. :-)

In a way, this was a lot more fun than just savagely flaming the guy. I mean, either way he walks out thinking he is the lone genius who has transcended logic and held the wingnuts at bay, but this way he has absolutely no excuse. We stripped the lefty troll bare.

I mean, man, I really can't believe he still didn't figure out how he begged the question. It was like, HEY PROJ, STOP HITTING YOURSELF and he would be all *HITS MYSELF* over and over and over again. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

A privately-owned dealership, an individual building contractor are NOT just "blip(s) on the corporate balance sheet." They are a person's life work and life investment.

Michael -

Why do you keep using the distancing "corporate asset", " corporate balance sheet", etc? There are real people livelihoods/homes at risk.

If an abortion clinic is owned by a corporation, does that mean it's destruction is not meant as an intimidating act to make a political point?

the semantics are the least interesting part of the whole discussion

I think you handled it very well by taking his definition and showing how it was not incompatible with property damage either, too. Between that, and every other definition under the sun showing him to be wrong, it was just... breathtaking, to watch him keep going.

--

Really, Michael, we don't have any problem with recognizing that there is a difference between arson and murder, even if both are done with the intent to intimidate. I fully agree that we should be spending more resources to deal with dangerous terrorists who are willing to engage in acts of war before we deal with stupid hippies. So even if you SLEEP WITH THE ENEMY we don't necessarily think YOU ARE A TRAITOR. ;)

Last was me.

I take it all back, he was right--I now realize he was using Anka logic. The definition of terrorism must include his required elements. Why? That's just the way it fuckin' is.

A privately-owned dealership, an individual building contractor are NOT just "blip(s) on the corporate balance sheet." They are a person's life work and life investment.

I agree. And so, they would be more easily terrorized by property crimes. I may be wrong, but my impression is that the victims of most of the crimes committed by "eco-terrorists" have been large corporations.

If an abortion clinic is owned by a corporation, does that mean it's destruction is not meant as an intimidating act to make a political point?

No. The key issue is whether violence is being effectively deployed to induce fear. The corporation could be owned by one family, that is dependant on the clinic for it's livelihood. Or it could be a chain, and the loss of one clinic is (yawn) an inconvenient insurance claim. In that event, the crime is more of a protest statement than an act of terrorism. It just depends.

In any event, when the intimidating crimes escalate to the point of death or personal injury, you are definitely dealing with major league terrorism. Aside from some tree spiking, I'm not aware that the "eco-terrorists" have done that.

Let's say this one more time: Violence to induce fear.

Your formulation, at odds with any dictionary, was "an intimidating act to make a political point."

That would fairly describe a civil rights march on Washington in the 60s. When Marin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have A Dream" speech to a huge throng in D.C., he was precisely engaging in an act that intimidated many in order to make a political point.

If our definition of terrorism is this broad, we (the right wing) will lose credibility, to the detriment of the war on terror.

I take it all back, he was right--I now realize he was using Anka logic. The definition of terrorism must include his required elements. Why? That's just the way it fuckin' is.

As a counter argument I would say that he did not slice like a fucking hammer when he moved.

Why do you guys feed the trolls?

Michael: You're off the Christmas list moonbat.

Its very funny. All he had to say was "I don't believe we should consider these people terrorists, because its not in society's interest for the following reasons:..."

That would be fine. Just don't authoritatively assert your opinion as TRUTH, insist on a semantic arguement, and then not be able to even argue
logically.

Hubris - It's also the Bart Simpson logic in the episode that was a parody of Twilight Zone. He had psychic powers and everybody lived in fear of him. His test paper was used as the answer key.

On the upside, if terrorism is "an intimidating act to make a political point," then Ted Kennedy can fairly be described as a terrorist for his questioning of Alito. Never mind that Alito was totally unruffled.

An arson that scares no one and does not even cause a material blip on the corporate balance sheet is a crime, but it is not terrorism, IMHO.

A violent act that is directed at my property to convince me to change my policy or business is indeed an act of terror. Period. The sense of violation and fear you get from such an act are powerful and immediate - as victims of robberies can attest.

As a small business owner, I've been called to my business in the middle of the night half a dozen times -fortunately all were false alarms. But every time, even with the police there, the thought that someone might have targeted your business was unnerving for days afterward. If I thought I was being systematically targeted by a group with an agenda, I'd probably have to go out of business. How could I know that things wouldn't escalate. How could I put my employees and their property at risk? And how could my business survive the destruction of a significant portion of its assets? Even with full insurance, we'd have been down for 3 months.

So I agree that destruction of property is not as heinous a crime as an attack on people. But it is not just the replacement value of the property that comes into play. And you never know where the violence will stop.

Your formulation, at odds with any dictionary, was "an intimidating act to make a political point."

No, a VIOLENT, intimidating act.

The lovely thing about the english language is its versitility. If we do not wish to highlight something with an unfavorable definition, we can squeak by with a euphamism. Surely there are some acts of "terror" that would more appropriately be labelled "sabotage" because they only affect equipment and endanger no lives.

I don't have any problem with thinking of, say, Iranian students inflicting "sabotage" on the infrastructure of Iran in order to undermine the mullahs.

But when I think of some pasty little fucks in tie-dye shirts firebombing a KFC because meat is murder, I don't care if no one got hurt. It's terrorism, and it fits the definition.

If we wished to excuse or justify such an act we could chose one word over another. But that doesn't meant the definition of terrorism as outlined above, from the Oxford Dictionary, is wrong just because you can imagine cases where it isn't entirely appropriate in your opinion.

When someone says 'Fuck you' and is ready to back it up with fists, I'm good to go.
When they sneak up behind your back and attack, then it is a cowardly act, tantamount to terror.

Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.

Indeed.
So torching vehicles, breaking windows of businesses, or throwing pies in the faces of those who you disagree with, yes, they are the examples of intimidation that the left has used for quite some time, with sanction from their mouthpieces in the media.
So let's add arson or physical attack resulting in injury- is this not true terrorism??
Fuck the left, hypocrite pigs.
I await the day they want to go toe-to-toe.
Chickenshit pussies.

Its very funny. All he had to say was "I don't believe we should consider these people terrorists, because its not in society's interest for the following reasons:..."

Yeah, but then he might find that we would be in agreement, and how could he get his jollies off of calling us idiots then?

I resent the comparison to the left.

That would be fine. Just don't authoritatively assert your opinion as TRUTH, insist on a semantic arguement, and then not be able to even argue
logically.

Are you talking about me? Because I am making a semantic argument. And I am not talking about TRUTH, but about the political expediency of reserving the "terrorist" label for the most egregious crimes.

Michael -

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Project provided the following:

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

The distinction between the actions we were discussing and a protest march is legality. White supremacists can protest legally, they can't trespass, burn, break windows, etc.

You haven't read this whole thread, but I can assure you that all the various third party definitions discussed either mentioned property damage specifically, or implied fear can be induced by things besides direct assault or threatened assault on a persons body.

Michael -

"Are you talking about me?"

I was referring to Project - although I have a suspicion that we are going to cover some of the same ground.

Torching of vehicles=arson.
No shit.
Sorry.

No, a VIOLENT, intimidating act.

OK. I quoted you correctly, but if you're going to add "violent," then I think we are in agreement.

Michael:

I work for GM, still a big corporation, even in its doldrums. The loss of a sh*tload of SUVs might just be a blip to them when you just consider the vehicles. But I have heard of individuals driving such vehicles being harrassed, sometimes threateningly so. I have read things on websites that - at least in rhetoric - are exceedingly threatening to individual owners. Will this escalate? Just not knowing is at least frightening. Will it drive people to shun these vehicles (about the only thing keeping The General afloat these past few years)? Much as the various ecos, greenies & Hollywoodites (who live mostly in large cities with small commutes and alternative transportation) would like it to be so, a Prius will just NOT do for folks who live in the wide-open spaces and have several middling-sized offspring. Just some thoughts ...

Are you talking about me?

Nah, that was totally ProJ. He said his definition was true and that we were all fools for thinking otherwise.

When confronted with contrary definitions he said they were wrong because, uh, they were different from his.

And then he denied begging the question, even after it was explained in painstaking detail. It was like a symphony of stupid.

If we wished to excuse or justify such an act we could chose one word over another.

Sortelli, be fair. No one on this thread has attempted to excuse or justify the acts of eco-terrorists, including (so far as I know) ProJ. That's just a straw man. The discussion has been entirely directed towards the character of acts that deserve to be labeled as terrorism.

Michael, I've got news for you.
Intimidation intimates violence.

I have read things on websites that - at least in rhetoric - are exceedingly threatening to individual owners.

See, that's exactly my point. If we start equating chat room bullshit with terrorism, we (the right wing) will lose all credibility, and the war on terrorism will suffer.

GOD, Michael. I'm not fucking arguing with you. Jesus.

I'm trying to agree with you, and never, never, ever has that been so FUCKING DIFFICULT.

I'm totally okay with using an alternate description for certain acts that, while they satisfy the ACTUAL, REAL WORLD, OXFORD FUCKING DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, it would be more constructive we if used a just little JUDGEMENT in APPLYING THE TERM.

But to clarify, that does not mean the dictionary was wrong, and that was what we spent the last fucking several hours trying to beat into ProJ's ninny little head before you showed up to say he was right because you agreed with the principle we all agreed with from the get go.

See, that's exactly my point. If we start equating chat room bullshit with terrorism, we (the right wing) will lose all credibility, and the war on terrorism will suffer.

I don't think the American Heritage definition would include the kind of low-level harrassment you're citing here. Here's the question: is burning crosses on the lawns in black neighborhoods terrorism? No one is hurt, their property is not damaged, but the threat of violence is very present.

So I guess I totally set up a strawman in order to... hug him or something. Because I sure didn't knock it down.

Michael -

Project's tone, a google on his handle, and the website in his info gives me a pretty strong feeling that he felt the property crimes weren't that serious because they were "For a good cause".

Early on, I agreed with him that of course destruction of property

BTW, I just factory-ordered a new SUV today. I'm getting the gas-guzzling V-8 and 4WD. And I'm getting one of those cool GPS navigation systems.

But, sorry, it's a Ford.

Michael -

Project's tone, a google on his handle, and the website in his info gives me a pretty strong feeling that he felt the property crimes weren't that serious because they were "For a good cause".

Early on, I agreed with him that of course destruction of property was less serious than destruction of life. He refused to address whether a series of severe property crimes used to make a political point should be treated more severely than the sum of the punishments for each act.

Also, it will have a kick-ass sound system.

BTW, I just factory-ordered a new SUV today.

Fuckin' A.

BTW, I just factory-ordered a new SUV today.

Did you use your Tunisian negotiating skills?

The good King George of England, he is a terrorist of the worst sort. Just plain mean, that scoundrel.

And fat. Did I mention that? Porky pork porkedyhead that king is, I'm sayin.

Did you use your Tunisian negotiating skills?

Ack - I meant Tangierian (sp?) negotiating skills.

Here's the question: is burning crosses on the lawns in black neighborhoods terrorism? No one is hurt, their property is not damaged, but the threat of violence is very present.

Exactly, geoff. The point that I'm trying to drive home is that part of the criminal aspect of many of these crimes has nothing to do with property. There's some kind of assault there, that I believe makes them more severe than the stuff destroyed. You can't just say - it was just a few houses burned down, or a dealership torched.

A group of people have taken it upon themselves to inflict their law on fellow citizens.

I don't really care whether we call them terrorists, eco-terrorists, etc. What it comes down to is they are not just committing property crimes.

it would be more constructive we if used a just little JUDGEMENT in APPLYING THE TERM.

Whoa, Sortelli. I guess we are in agreement. Give me a break. It's my official job on this website to be annoying. Ace gave me a certificate and everything.

Just out of curiosity, did you grow up reading the King James Bible? Because, usually when people spell "judgement" that way, that's the reason. I actually got to law school before I was told that the ccorrect current usage is "judgment."

Here's the question: is burning crosses on the lawns in black neighborhoods terrorism?

Yeah, I think so. Of course. There's no real violence, but a credible threat of violence is the same thing. Like Osama's recently released tape.

I actually got to law school before I was told that the ccorrect current usage is "judgment."

I had never heard that. I'll mend my evil ways immediately.

Dave From Garfield Ridge is a genius. He fulfills his guest blogging duties with a huge thread stemming from "What movies do you guys hate?".

No fuss. No muss. No semantic arguements. Just kick the ball and watch it roll, and roll, and roll, and roll...

Ack - I meant Tangierian (sp?) negotiating skills.\

Nope. I researched what I wanted and what it should cost on the web. Didn't go to a dealership, didn't take any test drives, didn't listen to any bullshit. Then I called up Scott at Enterprise Leasing and told him what I wanted. He faxed me an offer, I made a couple of revisions, then I signed it and faxed it back. Ford will start building my truck in the next couple of weeks; it should arrive here in Ohio in February.

God bless America. We really are efficient in so many ways.

Just out of curiosity, did you grow up reading the King James Bible?

Actually, yeah, but my poor spelling probably has a lamer source considering that I wasn't a big fan of bible study then.

Barring something to ram it into my head like this conversation, I usually wing it and figure "Hey, Judge, Ment, JUDGEMENT".

So what's my role around here? The guy who cusses a lot?

I had a lot of trouble with arguement and argument too.

michael:Now, spiking trees at the cut height in an old growth forest so that loggers are scared to do their job is fairly described as terrorism. There, the criminals are actually inducing fear of personal injury or death to achieve their ends.

Posted by: Michael on January 21, 2006 12:32 AMThis was not just a threat, but actually wounded and did kill lumberjacks. I'm from Oregon and well know the situation. You obviously don't understand the situation at all if you think it was merely a threat. As to blowing up buildings and other assets not being terrorism, nonsense. Terrorism is the threat of violence or use of violence to achieve a political end. b>Don't you understand that burning down buildings with or without people being killed is in fact an act of violence designed to achieve a political end? It's one thing to paint graffiti, quite another to blow up buildings or burn buildings. You are lawyer enough to realize the difference between violence and non- violence. This idea that burning down houses or burning up vehicles is not terrorism is absolute nonsense. It is violence by the nature of the act. Painting a building or writing words never killed anyone, but many die each year in burning buildings. To not understand the difference in nature and necessary inference between arson (and/or threats of violence) on the one hand and graffiti (and other non-violent actions) on the other is to ignor the difference between threatening to shoot someone with a loaded gun and threatening to give someone a "wedgie". No one claims a wedgie is terrorism because there is no threat to life or limb, while the loaded gun is a threat to life and limb. Just as arson is a threat to life and limb.P.S. I've never before disagreed with anything you've written Michael, so I'm starting to worry that maybe some of Kerry's nuances have rubbed off on you.P.P.S. Dr. King never threatened violence, so your use of his non violent protest and his speech advocating non-violence is a slander to Dr. king and all advocates of non-violent protest. Anyone who was intimidated did not listen to his speeches or watch his actions. What violence did he threaten? None.It is precisely the example of Dr. King's non-violence versus those using arson and other violence that is at issue here. Shame on you.

There's some kind of assault there, that I believe makes them more severe than the stuff destroyed.

Also: I totally agree with this.

In a way that makes me flinch because I think of "hate crimes", but I think there is definitely something significantly common among these acts given motivations and tactics applied.

But I am comfortable for those responsible to be tried for arson or whatever crime it was they actually commited in the course of their ideology.

Dave From Garfield Ridge is a genius. He fulfills his guest blogging duties with a huge thread stemming from "What movies do you guys hate?".

Yeah. I've been watching Ace's Sitemeter, and so far his traffic is holding up really well. I wonder if his feelings will be hurt when he realizes that he is kind of inconsequential to this blog.

Well, there've been a lot of popular "fluff" posts of late, and a plethora of liberal commenters to keep threads trundling along. But the Ace magic is what'll keep the site together in the longer term.

"But the Ace magic is what'll keep the site together in the longer term."

You mean him using all the material he stole from me over the past 19 years ;-)

It feels funny sometimes, because this is the crap we used to do together, and now its played out with, and much enhanced by, others. The JBM thing was something we would have done at 4:00 am while drinking our asses off.

Pendelton:

Dude, I don't think we actually disagree. If you look at my comments again, I am not suggesting that arson cannot be terrorism, or that it is comparable to a wedgie.

The difference between us is this -- I'm still sober enough to spell correctly and close my HTML tags.

By the way, Steve, "hb" stands for Huntington Beach, right?

Isn't that Surf City, immortalized by the Jan & Dean song, with the pier?

I was there on a business trip. Had a room with a view of the pier. Got a great fish taco down by the beach.

"In a way that makes me flinch because I think of "hate crimes", but I think there is definitely something significantly common among these acts given motivations and tactics applied."

Sortelli -

I know nothing about law, but in laymens terms:

If you physically assault someone, thats more serious than making a racial/anti-gay/ etc threat. The actual act trumps the "message" you sent - prosecute the way you would any murder/assault/etc

If you terrorize through property destruction, in many ways the mental/emotional impact is more severe than some stuff being destroyed. The "message" trumps the actual physical act - tack on something to account for that.

The JBM thing was something we would have done at 4:00 am while drinking our asses off.

Yes, we did similar things back at the frat some 25 years ago. Not so much with the cock/anal/homo stuff back then, though. It was a more innocent time, a golden age, an age of heroes . . .

Michael -

HB=Huntington Beach.

HB actually has about 200k people. Surf City generally is used to refer to "Downtown" - the area near the beach centered on the pier.

I moved here about 5 years ago - like it a lot. Palm trees, sunshine, and girls in bikinis riding bicycles tend to lift your spirits.

I used the handle so Ace would realize who was busting his balls.

geoff -

Ace and I always worked in the gutter and vicious. Thats why I tell folks out here - you are incapable of hurting my feelings, offending me, or making me angry with your pitiful verbal sparring skills.

Ace and I always worked in the gutter and vicious.

It's fun to watch, but I've never been able to keep up in that respect. I threw myself into one flame war, but it was exhausting, my skilz were sane, and I ended up feeling bad for people I slammed (rather, tried to slam). But as a spectator sport it's very entertaining.

These EARTH FIRST,ELF and ALF radicals are as bad as AL QUEDA and in fact they are just like AL QUEDA THEY ARE COWARDS WHO SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP UNDER ANTITERRORIST LAWS AND SENT TO PRISON FOR 60 OR MORE YEARS ITS TIME TO SHOW THAT AMERICA AND AMERICAN WILL NOT TOLERATE TERRORISTS ANYWHERE

Michael, you are wrong.

You want an examlpe of ecoterrorism? You want an ecoterrorist who "killed" or "scared" people?

I give you the Unabomber.

"I give you the Unabomber."

I always call Richard Reid "The Shoenabomber".

Michael, you are wrong.

. . .

I give you the Unabomber.

Good example, Jack. Better than my own example of people who spike trees.

How does this make anything I said wrong?

*sigh*

One more time, my only point was that we should hesitate to carelessly use the word "terrorism" to describe some hippies vandalizing the assets of Georgia Pacific or the U.S. Forest Service. To the extent that ProJ was trying to make the same point, I agree with him. I don't think anyone ever suggested there were no genuine examples of ecoterrorism

In other words, Jack, you are wrong. I give you . . .

THE FRICKIN' POST WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT!

Remember the post, folks? It's not about the Unabomber, tree spikers, arson of family businesses, or blowing up abortion clinics. The attacks described in the frickin' post appear to have been aimed at the assets of government and large corporations. They were essentially a criminal form of protest, not a terroristic attempt to instill "intense fear." The consequence of their actions, which apparently did not threaten personal injury or death to anyone, was to make a political statement, waste some corporate and taxpayer dollars, and piss people off. But the article gives us no reason the think they scared anyone.

It's like everybody stopped thinking, and ignored the contents of the article, as soon as they identified ProJ as a troll and assumed that he could not possibly be making a point that had any merit whatsoever.

a criminal form of protest

Burning down offices and sabotaging a power line is "protest?" And you keep making a distinction between the assets of large corporations and those of small businesses. I don't think that's morally or practically valid.

It's like everybody stopped thinking, and ignored the contents of the article, as soon as they identified ProJ as a troll

I call this the "Cedarford reflex."

So, now that you have all been properly thrashed by me and my new buddy ProJ, I think I'll just slink out the back door and lurk somewhere else for awhile.

Wow, Michael quite a string posts assailing the use of the word "terrorist" to describe these folks.

How do you like this argument instead?

"Dang, I kinda liked my theory better. But you're right, the ELF deserves to be treated, and reported on, like any other group of domestic terrorists.

Maybe their emphasis on vandalism and arson makes them uninteresting to the MSM. After all, it's "just" property damage suffered by capitalists.
Michael | 11.06.05 - 4:21 pm "

That's what you wrote on my blog Michael.

You called them domestic terrorists.

I agreed with you then. You are wrong now.

And you keep making a distinction between the assets of large corporations and those of small businesses. I don't think that's morally or practically valid.

Shit, I didn't make it out the door.

C'mon, geoff, pay attention. The only distinction I'm making is whether the attack is designed to scare the shit out of someone, thereby justifying the use of the term "terrorist," which is the issue raised in the frickin' post.

It follows that a few isolated attacks that burn down a vacant Forest Ranger station, or some storage shed owned by Georgia Pacific (presumably insured), is not very scary at all. It's just annoying. Burning down a family business, on the other hand, or engaging in acts of murder or mayhem, or threatening to do so, puts the safety and/or the economic security of people at risk and is very scary.

Anyone else want a final whack?

If anyone wants to see the post which led to Michael's earlier statements (which he know seems to disavow) regarding calling these groups "terrorists" it can be found here.

Although haloscan shows zero comments for the link, if you do in fact click on the comments you will find the discussion therein.

Michael - I agree Jack M. mischaracterized your postings.

"Targets included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, U.S. Bureau of Land Management wild horse facilities, lumber companies, meat processing companies, a ski area and the power line"

It appears that we differ on the following

1) You make some distinction based on whether the target is Govt/Large Corp or not.
2) You don't consider making a political point by destroying someone's business, place of employment, etc as coercive and attempting to instill fear.

I really don't understand why you keep making the distinction that the targets were large corporations and government facilities. Its the kind of thinking that says its wrong to steal $100 from an individual, but not wrong to steal it from a large company. They were commiting violent, illegal acts in order to inflict their political will on the rest of society.

Why does it matter whether their target is a family owned ski facility or one owned by a corporation thats owns 20 others? They were attempting to make themselves the arbiters of whether fellow citizens (owners, shareholders, staff, etc) could participate in perfectly legal activities.

Some group gets together, decides they are more moral/ethical/intelligent than the rest of society, and use violent, illegal means to intimidate, coerce, etc. For Christs sake, they are effectively trying to usurp law making from the legislature.

I believe my Libertarian leanings are the reason this gets my hackles up. It's bad enough that the state overreaches and legislates certain things that are none of it's business, but now an unelected bunch of assholes is going to get together and use violence to prevent me from doing legal stuff?

Steve_in_hb...

How did I mischaracterize his postings?

I might not have made myself clear with the Unabomber reference, granted. But my point was that 1) it's proper to call these eco-terrorists, terrorists and 2) that even Michael agreed with this assertion 3 months ago, while conceding that his use of the phrase "domestic terrorists" in connection with the ELF was appropriate even is one concedes that all they do is "vandalism", "arson" and damage property of the "capitalists".

I don't think I mischaracterized anything.

There might be a line regarding acts of "terrorism" and when it's no longer useful to harp on it with that label, but that line is not past "eco-terrorism". Just because it doesn't scare someone doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

I guess Jack wants a final whack.

Jack, that discussion started with your post about an animal rights activist that actually advocated murder in support of the cause. You were incensed that the MSM had not reported this. I suggested the MSM didn't report on this because no one took him seriously. You then supplied a link to an article describing half a dozen animal rights and ecological activist groups (the ELF was only one, and was perhaps the least scary), which described in detail many genuinely frightening activities, including attacks on humans.

I then agreed agreed with you that the MSM was wrong to ignore such threats, and should be actively reporting the activities of such groups, which generically ought to be viewed as terrorist.

In short, I call bullshit. That discussion on your blog was completely different from the post that launched this thread. The topic on your blog was whether the MSM should be taking seriously, and reporting on, threats of murder by an animal rights activist. It was not about whether specific criminal activity rises to the level of "terrorism."

In any event, your comment completely, and disingenuously, ducks the substance of whether I am right or wrong in the context of the present discussion about some hippies burning down a vacant ranger station.

Jack M. -

When I was writing, the last post you had made was.

Michael, you are wrong.

You want an examlpe of ecoterrorism? You want an ecoterrorist who "killed" or "scared" people?

I give you the Unabomber.

Posted by Jack M. at January 21, 2006 03:54 PM

The impression that I got from that was that you were suggesting he didn't believe any "ecoterrorist" had clearly gone over the line or that he wouldn't consider the Unabomber a terrorist. If that was not your intention, I apologize.

1) You make some distinction based on whether the target is Govt/Large Corp or not.

2) You don't consider making a political point by destroying someone's business, place of employment, etc as coercive and attempting to instill fear.

Steve, I don't think you and I really disagree.

1) A few minutes ago, I pointed out that I was not making this distrinction. The distinction I was making is between crimes that are scary and those that are only annoying, or even infuriating.

2) Yes, I do, and have said so repeatedly. But the isolated activities described in the article do not appear to have come close to jeopardizing someone's business or place of employment. It's gonna take a whole lotta arson before Forest Service employees start worrying about where their next check is coming from. In fact, it looks to me like these crimes were actually designed to not hurt individuals, but just to stick it to The Man. The whole thing sounds like hippies in the 60s torching a vacant ROTC facility.

Michael -

True story.

Two of my friends were walking down the street. Two guys came out of an alley and threatened them with a knife demanding money. My friends recognized the muggers were pussies, beat the hell out of them, emptied garbage cans on them, and left them in the alley.

They were never really scared. Does that mean the muggers weren't trying to use the threat of violence to take my friends' money?

It isn't different at all, Michael.

The conduct of these "hippies burning down a vacant ranger station" is little different from those undertaken by some of the groups identified in the report.

And of those groups, you designated ELF to be the least scary. Why?

Apparently, because they perpetrated acts like those that are the subject of this post: i.e. arson and vandalism.

And yet, even tho this is (in your eyes) the least scary group, 3 months ago you labelled ELF as domestic terrorists.

You didn't call them "domestic annoyances".

You called them domestic terrorists.

So 3 months ago, you considered acts undertaken by ELF (acts which are virtually identical to those undertaken by your "hippies") to rise to the level of terrorism.

I ducked nothing.

I simply pointed out that you are inconsistent in your deciding what does and does not constitute an act of terrorism.

I believe that the acts referenced in my initial post and the acts referenced in the post that started this thread both are fairly called "terrorist" acts.

You apparently don't. Now.

Steve:

No. Clearly they were trying to instill fear.

Consider the example I just gave -- burning down a vacant ROTC facility. Those hippies were not trying to instill fear; the arson was a form of protest.

The arsons described in the post seem to have the same character -- stick it to The Man, but don't hurt anyone.

Michael -

...but just to stick it to The Man. The whole thing sounds like hippies in the 60s torching a vacant ROTC facility.

I guess we just disagree. You seem to have a soft spot, or not take it seriously, if its a bunch of "gentle hippies" kicking their heels up a bit. I don't understand that.

Steve_in_hb,

It's OK. I wasn't very clear with the point i was trying to make, and only realized that after I typed out an explanatory response.

Rule of contracts...the fault lies with the drafter. :)

You seem to have a soft spot, or not take it seriously, if its a bunch of "gentle hippies" kicking their heels up a bit.

No, I take arson very seriously, whether it's a ROTC office or a Forest Ranger station, and such crimes should be punished severely.

The issue here is only whether we should call this "terrorist" activities. I maintain that applying this label to crimes that are not plausibly intended to scare anyone is ill advised, especially for those of us on the right, because we will eventually lose credibility.

The war on (genuine) terror will suffer if the public perceives that those of us on the right are careless about distinguishing between genuine terrorism and ordinary criminal activity, especially given that we advocate giving the government extraordinary powers in order to combat terrorism. If the public perceives that these powers are, or might be, used to combat vandalism, we're in trouble.

And of those groups, you designated ELF to be the least scary. Why?

Read two comments above your question.

I will concede to you, Jack, that on your blog I used the wrong set of initials in my comment, because we we're actually talking about animal rights activists who threaten murder and I should have said ALF. And I will reiterate that the entire discussion on your blog was about the MSM overlooking the activities of such groups, not about whether specific activities rise to the level of terrorism.

So again, I call bullshit. You are avoiding the issue.

Guys, I gotta go. Mrs. Michael is expecting me to be dressed and ready to leave for a party in a few minutes, and my current jeans and tee shirt aren't going to pass muster.

Enjoyed the discussion.

Michael -

I think its pointless to keep discussing this. You believe that the acts were not intended to scare people. I believe that even if the intention wasn't to put people in fear for their lives, they were still trying to make fellow citiizens afraid to work in certain industries, geographical areas, etc. To me that is intilling fear, being coercive, etc for political purposes and therefore it isn't ordinary criminal activity.

I agree that we have bigger fish to fry, and it may not be politically wise to bring the full arsenal of anti-terrorist weapons to bear against these groups.

However, I do think people who do the kinds of things we discussed deserve more punishment than you would give a stupid teenager who lights buildings on fire for kicks. They've committed more than a property crime.

It follows that a few isolated attacks that burn down a vacant Forest Ranger station, or some storage shed owned by Georgia Pacific (presumably insured), is not very scary at all.

Actually I was focusing on this part:

. . . is accused of serving as a lookout for a fire in 2001 that destroyed offices of a lumber mill

Yeah..you're right Michael! By stating that I believe (your protests notwithstanding) both your beloved hippies and the folks referenced in my terrorists should be called, in fact, terrorists, I am completely ignoring the issue.

What's the title of this post?

Call It What It Is?

Jack calls it "terrorism"
Michael calls it "not terrorism because it's done by hippies".

I avoided nothing. That's just your way of trying to divert the subject away from the fact that your standards on "eco-terrorism" are ever evolving and nuanced.

But that's ok. It's boring enough dealing with you on my own blog. Lord knows, I don't need to do it here as well.

The second sentence in my last post should have read:

"By stating that I believe (your protests notwithstanding) both your beloved hippies and the folks referenced in my POST ABOUT terrorists should be called, in fact, terrorists...."

It's boring enough dealing with you on my own blog.

your beloved hippies . . .

Well, Mrs. Michael is late getting home to go to the party. Me, I'm washed up, dressed and ready to go.

Jack, there is a sure-fire indicator of when you have kicked somebody's ass on the merits -- they resort to ad hominem attacks and insults.

For the record:

I think you are doing a great job with your blog, I look forward to reading it, and I enjoy the repartee amongst the regulars. If you want me to stop commenting because I disagreed with you here, just say so. I'll spare you the trouble of banning me.

As to my "beloved hippies," what I said was "I take arson very seriously, whether it's a ROTC office or a Forest Ranger station, and such crimes should be punished severely."

Michael,

Banning you would be too kind a fate.

Instead, I will allow you to continue to visit my crappy little blog in the hope that you will finally learn your lesson.

Besides..I want my first ban to be of someone who really has it coming.

Like Civetta.

The UNIBOMBER was a big time eco-freak to he read AL GORES eco-babble book EARTH IN THE BALANCE he lived in a shack with no electricity he rode a bicycle and he lived what could be called a primitive life just like what the eco-freaks want us to do