Eco-terrorism

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Is that like a Deathstar only different?

Own Goal?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I take it you have nothing meaningful to say on the subject if you resort to this after two posts.Should I be shocked you aren't able to see the difference between Al Capone and OBL?

I'd be surprise if he did.

[Dinner]

So do any of you have eco-terrorist organizations where you live?

[Whaleboy]

Setting potentially life-threatening fires that put innocent people at great risk of death in order to advance a political goal doesn't qualify?

Thats arson, not terrorism. Terrorism is a crime committed in order to cause localised or mass terror, not collateral damage, or specific damage to make a particular statement. The cited case is a crime, but it is not terrorism.

I love it when people screw everything up like this. Look at all the enviromental and Animal Welfare organizations like Green Peace, PETA, the Sierra Club, etc...

The only possible way that such organisations could be described as being truly leftist is that they are generally opposed to pollution and damage cause by capitalism, which is economically on the right. Nonetheless, these are groups whose primary aim is not economic, so it is a folly for people, including themselves, to describe them as being leftist. The active part of their philosophy is conservative... literally, in order to conserve (hence conservationists) the environment. Applying a highly flawed definition to these groups, that is in actuality completely wrong is laughable!

They are all left of center groups and so are leftist organizations

Like I said, "left" and "right" only applies to economics, not a coherent political view, contrary to the cold war bull we have all be exposed to ("the left is evil, even though we don't want to tell you what they left actually is and isn't").

Please get the facts straight before you go around correcting people

Right back at you. Perhaps you should actually read some "leftist" texts and see how flawed that definition is. Marx's Kapital and Mills "On Liberty" are both texts that have been accused of being leftist, yet actually applying the meaning of left and right means that while the former is leftist, the latter is in fact on the right. The other philosophical dimensions that make up a political view like liberalism are more or less unrelated to "left and right". For example, as a self-described and self actualised liberal, I am on the right, in terms of left and right. Besides, I'm just right! j/k

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I take it you have nothing meaningful to say on the subject if you resort to this after two posts.

Is this your counterargument - generic handwaving?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Should I be shocked you aren't able to see the difference between Al Capone and OBL?

That's a flaw in your logic, since I applied it to come up with this conclusion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
ELF's slogan is "If you build it we will burn it" they have published manufestos in several eco-magazines in which they state their goal is to preserve wildlife and open spaces through violence if necisary. So as you see they are using violence to further political and/or social objectives and thus are a terrorist organization.

That's a silly definition.

If a shady real estate developer hires thugs to scare people off a property he wants to buy, does it make him a terrorist?

[Whaleboy]

UR: You don't understand.. If its action against conservative and traditional captalist conservative, then its terrorism. That is, anything that can be remotely linked to violence, when it is a crime. Hell, I've even been called a terrorist because I write stuff against US and (neo) con interests!!

[Urban Ranger]

That means I am a terrorist too? Way cool!

[Whaleboy]

We're all terrorists!!! It just so happens that we're not criminals... well... in a major way at least...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by elijah
Like I said, "left" and "right" only applies to economics, not a coherent political view, contrary to the cold war bull we have all be exposed to ("the left is evil, even though we don't want to tell you what they left actually is and isn't").

Alright, I'm going to keep using the definitions that real university political science professors taught me and you can keep using your own little special definitions of what left and right is.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If a shady real estate developer hires thugs to scare people off a property he wants to buy, does it make him a terrorist?

Does the developer wish to effect social or political change in the wider population?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is this your counterargument - generic handwaving?

It goes well with the idiocy of the statement I was refering to.

That's a flaw in your logic

You've yet to state any meaningful reason why.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's a silly definition.

If a shady real estate developer hires thugs to scare people off a property he wants to buy, does it make him a terrorist?

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.

By your definition, the KKK wouldn't be a terrorist organization - just some thugs who occasionally break the law.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by elijah
UR: You don't understand.. If its action against conservative and traditional captalist conservative, then its terrorism...

Just as if you agree with an organizations goals it's "apolitical" and "unbiased"?

[Whaleboy]

Alright, I'm going to keep using the definitions that real university political science professors taught me and you can keep using your own little special definitions of what left and right is.

Perhaps you would do me the honour of enlightening me with your particular definitions of left and right, and upon doing so, you will either prove my point or embarrass yourself about the obviously BS'd nature of what you purport to be information from your *cough* political science professors.

I shall give you mine, I think people will agree that these definitions of left and right are as standard as you can get:

Right: Principles of free-market, non interference. Generally lends itself to libertarian concerns, however some of the more extreme interpretations are better suited to totalitarian systems.

Left: State controlled economy. For the most part, totalitarian and conservative (sic pragmatism), however one can have libertarian interpretations. These tend to be so far left that they actually result in a free market . This I suppose is my position of being a right-wing liberal.

Ecological groups seek to preserve the environment, or return it to a state previous. As such, and by definition, it is conservative. However, it can be opposed to some elements of capitalism that cause the pollution/damage, so thats the only legitimate way they can be described as being leftist. However, this is a consequential stance, so the application of left-right one dimensional economic spectrum (which is already flawed enough as demonstrated) is something of a fallacy. Its like a business stocking ice-cream in the summer and woolly hats in the winter.