Eco-terrorism

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If it's a specific owner or tenant, on a specific piece of property, then no.

If it's a general practice, or let's say part of a "keep our neighborhoods safe for our little white Aryan kids to play in" campaign, then it crosses the line.

The thing is, social or political issues can range from the very specific to extremely broad. For example, protecting an old building from redevelopment due to historical values can be one of these issues. Therefore, I found FBI's blanket definition silly, as you can pretty much label anybody or any organisation you don't like as "terrorist."

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Eco-terrorism

Originally posted by Dissident
so did they prove that eco-terrorists are behind the apartment fires?

There were ELF slogans and leaflets left at each of the arson sights. I suppose someone could be trying to frame ELf but given ELF's recent attacks and the manufesto they have mailed to newspapers here in the west it seems to fit their modus opporandi to a tee.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by elijah
REMF?

Rear-Entry Mother-F**ker?

[Dinner]

Rear Escileon Mother F*cker. MtG is just mad because he was a bullet catcher in the infantry.

[Whaleboy]

Rear-Entry Mother-F**ker?

Too much!

Perhaps I should summarise my position (teehee). These groups are criminals, not terrorists, the only way they can be described as "leftist" is indirect at best, dubious at worse. Their ideology is fine and honourable, but they are discrediting it by committing these crimes. I think its good that one should try to protect the environment, but we do need a more fundamental shift in our thinking to forge a permanent solution. Unfortanately, for various reasons (elijah restrains his urge to hammer another nail into the coffin of conservatism), I don't see this happening, thus the human race is doomed to extinction unless we like live in space or something .

As a matter of interest, what's the problem that makes this so bad that eco criminals are given more attention than normal criminals who commit the same crime (and lets face it, its not exactly rare)? I'm thinking another excuse to launch one against the left (and knowing Oerdin I wouldn't put it past him), but for other people... is it the novelty of a traditionally cuddley ideology getting a nasty edge?

BTW: I have a class in a few minutes so I wont be able to respond until tomorrow (I'll be exhaused tonight), so don't think that I've abandoned my argument!

[Dinner]

Elijah weren't you the one who was claiming Green Peace and the Sierra club were conservative (rightist) and not liberal (leftist) organizations?

[Saras]

Rear Echelon

[Dis]

well all the burnings in my city had no ELF or other slogans.

I think it's just kids, or old fogey's who are against our little town growing big. Or the workers of the construction site themselves burning it down because they hate the company they work for, or want more work.

So even though, we've had quite a few construction site fires, none are eco-terrorism that I know of.

[Whaleboy]

Elijah weren't you the one who was claiming Green Peace and the Sierra club were conservative (rightist) and not liberal (leftist) organizations?

No, I said they were conservative. Rightist means economic, where the influence of the environmental groups is indirect. This element of conservatism is separate from the right. You need to get away from the notion of left=liberal, right=conservative. Its a simple case of necessary and sufficient conditions (penguins and birds).

[Dinner]

I'll stick with the real definitions thank you.

[Whaleboy]

Read mine on the previous page, I'll think you'll agree that the distinctions are pretty clear for all to see.

[Dinner]

The reason most ecological groups are leftist is that they are seeking new regulations in order to reduce pollution or human impact. As a general rule conservatives want less regulation and liberals want more regulation.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The reason most ecological groups are leftist is that they are seeking new regulations in order to reduce pollution or human impact. As a general rule conservatives want less regulation and liberals want more regulation.

I thought liberals wanted NO regulation.

[Whaleboy]

But that is an indirect consequence. A determination of right vs left can only be made if the group has direct economic interests. If it was in capitalism's interest to preserve the environment, and that is increasingly becoming so, then the groups will inherently support capitalism. As such, their economic alliegiance, shall we say, are variable and not set in stone, indeed there are groups than are capitalist!! It is unfair to say they are thus leftist, and while this particular group you cite seems anti-cap, the actual ideology behind is not leftist. As such, that particular label, I suppose for political convenience, is unfair.

[Whaleboy]

I thought liberals wanted NO regulation

Yep!!! The word literally means libertarian. Of course, you get some who adopt most elements of libertarian liberalism but maintain elements of communism. Those are the stereotypical liberals that conservatives like to portray, because totalitarianism makes no sense