Eco-terrorism

[Imran Siddiqui]

these actions are not directed at civilians, their intent is not to strike fear into the hearts of the populos. Their intent is to cause financial damage to deter companys from building.

You don't think that some of these acts are directed at civilians? Destroying their SUVs, burning their houses? You don't think this is not to strike fear into the hearts of the people? Wouldn't you be scared of your new house being burned to the ground?

What says that all terrorism has to be intended to kill civilians? As long as the violence for political ends is not against the military, then it can be characterized as terrorism.

[MrFun]

Re: Eco-terrorism

Originally posted by Oerdin
Is arson and vandalism justified . . .?

This does not fit in with the concept of civil disobedience, so no, these actions are not justified.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You don't think that some of these acts are directed at civilians? Destroying their SUVs, burning their houses? You don't think this is not to strike fear into the hearts of the people? Wouldn't you be scared of your new house being burned to the ground?

What says that all terrorism has to be intended to kill civilians? As long as the violence for political ends is not against the military, then it can be characterized as terrorism.

As far as I read, the SUV burning was at a dealership, and the house burning was on development estates.In fact, as the estate was still being built, there were no people around. It wasnt as if you ran screaming as your new house was burnt. That just didnt happen here. At worst, the prospective owners would get a call saying what had happened and their money back.

New houses being burnt down is not going to stop people wanting to buy new houses, so therefore there is no point targeting the hearts of the people. You need to target the wallets of the building firms, and that is exactly what is happening here.

What says that all violence has to be terrorism? Whilst I agree that youve got the correct dictionary definition, the abuse of the word needs to end. In the minds of the people the word means something different and its far uglier than the 'political ends' definition. There was no intention to scare the population at large, care seems to have been taken to prevent loss of life, and it seems unfair to tar them with the same brush as the rest of the scum we have come to know the word by.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was no intention to scare the population at large

I totally disagree. There definetly was intent to scare the population at general. Its SUVs at a dealership today and houses being built. You don't think people in that area aren't scared? I doubt it.

I think these groups want people to be scared what will happen if they contract to build houses in former wildlife areas and scared what will happen to their SUVs.

the abuse of the word needs to end. In the minds of the people the word means something different and its far uglier than the 'political ends' definition.

Yes the abuse of the word needs to end. Terrorism is violence for political ends. Blowing up civilians is one kind of terrorism, not the be all, end all.

[Tattila the Hun]

We've had some arsons where I live, 4 yesterday, but those are propably due to the funny farm (madhouse?) located nearby.

On ecoterrorism, just yesterday, I think, some twerps let out some 5000 minks/sobels/ferrets (the cute ones you make furs from) of a fur farm. They have no way of surviving in the wild, and some actually die of shock as they are released, thus the EVR (ALF) or whoever is behind it ends up causing more suffering to them than the farmer.

Beware of stupid people in large groups. And behind a Cause.

[Whaleboy]

It would appear that a consensus of reasonable opinion is emerging...

Violence and criminal activities like this is unacceptable, no matter how potent or valid or cute the cause. As we are not debating so much the policies of that group, am I to understand that we all concur with the environmentalist agenda? Would seem to be a reasonable proposition, though I suppose we would differ on how to achieve this, but the scientitic community seems to concur that we cannot go on as we are. A further debate is whether such crime is terrorism. According to the FBI's definition it is, but then that's hardly a definition we can regard as objective or without political motivation. A more generic, consistent definition would hold that it is not, but again, this is up for debate. A reasonable summary?

[Saras]

Surprisingly, yes.

[Whaleboy]

Wow! Someone likes one of my summaries!!