Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

[arildno]

Off topic, but I always wondered if that would be the perfect way to get away with murder. Get your victim to come with you to a cliff, push him off, and tell the police he slipped. How would they ever prove otherwise?

Totally off topic:
I would think that the most effective way in pushing a guy over a cliff is to give him a hard shove in the back. The guy ought then to topple over and fall head first down. But in the case of accidental slipping, wouldn't it be more likely that the guy fell with his feet first?

Thus, the manner in which a guy hits the ground might be an indication of whether he was pushed or slipped..

 

[russ_watters]

Arson is a form of vandalism...

No, it isn't. Arson is a felony, vandalism is a misdemeanor and they are separate crimes. Ie, if you commit arson, you are not charged with vandalism.

 

[russ_watters]

Nothing is going to be clean, clear cut, and empiricle on a political forum.
Is politcal science an exact science?

No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

 

[rachmaninoff]

Totally off topic:
I would think that the most effective way in pushing a guy over a cliff is to give him a hard shove in the back. The guy ought then to topple over and fall head first down.

Seems in that case, they might be able to regain their balance with their feet.

Thus, the manner in which a guy hits the ground might be an indication of whether he was pushed or slipped..

If the cliff has any real height, then as I assume they'd be rotating somewhat it wouldn't make any difference.
(still totally off topic)

 

[edward]

No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

And what about this rewrite of history by the statutoryape:

And yes the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act. The Sons of Liberty, who perpetrated the Tea Party, are probably the earliest homegrown American terrorist organization and you could easily parallel them with the IRA of Ireland.

It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.

In recent years the term terrosist has became a household world and it has been applied with a very broad brush. If the term is now going to be applied to all historical events we will need to rewrite everything from the abolition of slavery to the protests of women who wished to have the right to vote.

As far as being technically correct the term used by the FBI is domestic terrorism. And it applies to a broad rage of acts which were not all previously considered to be terrorist acts or in violation of federal law. Lobbying by special interest groups changed everything. Heck, they even got bills passed that made it illegal to criticize the beef industry in Texas and twelve other states.

Timothy McVeigh definitely committed a terrorist act, but from a strictly legal point of view, if a 70 year old grandmother tosses a rock at a bulldozer, she has also committed a terrorist act.

The FBI currently has much more important things to do other than protect the interests of big business.

 

[X-43D]

Most environmentalists are not terrorists. Violence is not the way to achieve anything even if it's a good thing.

 

[SOS2008]

I hear this term and I wonder, what in the world are they talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
Except for perhaps "Any policy of intimidation", and even that is a stretch, since I don't see how spray painting SUV's is intimidating.
Even the most radical eco groups, ELF and ALF have never caused bodily harm to anyone, their actions are always directed toward property. in spite of this the FBI has declared that eco terrorists are the greatest domestic terrorist threat.
Is this just more of the same movement to stifle and crush any opposition to the corporate acquisition and dispensation of all the worlds resources?
Is there a credible threat from people who rescue puppies?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/n...30a7fb399&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/07/08/kavanagh/index.html?source=daily
I feel that this is a more accurate description of the whole "eco-terrorism" hype.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/9/30/161855/060?source=daily

Back before you began participating in PF, I made the comment that on the spectrum of things (or comparison of extremism) tree-hugging, granola-eating, whale-watching liberals are not as frightening as the right-wing conservative extremists (as in “right of Attila the Hun”), some already mentioned such as the KKK, and which BTW include Islamic jihad terrorists. Come on, we know these groups can’t be defined as left-wing bleeding heart liberals.

The reason our country has verged upon becoming a fascist theocracy is because liberal pacifists do not “take up arms” in loud, aggressive activism. The “in-your-face” Bill O’Reilly’s of the world mentioned in the OP article are to be feared far more, and are the people who espouse this bunch of BS propaganda about liberals, which includes attacks against those in our society who are secular. Ohhhhhh, such a heinous crime it is to be secular…ohhhhh!

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Ideology does not justifice violence. Never. It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are or how you perceive things - if you've come to the point where you need to blow things up to make your point heard, you lose any moral high ground you might possibly have had.
I've had about enough of all these ideologues pouring in from all sides with terrorism and fear-mongering. They're all condemnable.

Violence towards property can be an excellent political tool. A moral high ground is a capitalist construction designed to prevent the masses from revolting. I am not advocating violence against the individual, though sometimes it may be justified. Regardless, property is entirely different.

An example of Eco-Terrorism that is justified:Democratic action is taken to stop the demolishing of a rainforest, which a company wants to use for lumber. The democratic action fails because of capitalist corruption. Destroying the equipment and means to demolish the forest would be a perfectly reasonable response.

 

[russ_watters]

And what about this rewrite of history by the statutoryape:

It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.

I really don't know what you mean: no history class I ever took even asked the question of whether or not the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, and the two terms don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. Since throwing tea over the side of a ship is not a straightforward violent crime like arson or tree spiking is, I think such a debate could be interesting, but the answer probably isn't as clear-cut as it is with ecoterrorism.

In recent years the term terrosist has became a household world and it has been applied with a very broad brush. If the term is now going to be applied to all historical events we will need to rewrite everything from the abolition of slavery to the protests of women who wished to have the right to vote.

I agree that the term is often misused, but I don't see how the fact that it is often misused implies that it should be misused.

 

[russ_watters]

An example of Eco-Terrorism that is justified:Democratic action is taken to stop the demolishing of a rainforest, which a company wants to use for lumber. The democratic action fails because of capitalist corruption. Destroying the equipment and means to demolish the forest would be a perfectly reasonable response.

Could you expand on that, please? You are stating your opinion, but not explaining why (a.) chopping down a forest for wood is wrong and (b.) why even if true that makes destruction of equipment justified to prevent it.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Could you expand on that, please? You are stating your opinion, but not explaining why (a.) chopping down a forest for wood is wrong and (b.) why even if true that makes destruction of equipment justified to prevent it.

Sure,

A. I should have been more specific. You are to assume chopping down the forest is the incorrect decision, by all logical indications, for the sake of the debate. In short, it is a hypothetical situation where the rainforest clearly needs to be preserved for the good of humanity. A few wealthy capitalist want to make an investment, and they disregard the greater good.

B. If destroying the equipment results in the benefit of humanity, then it is justified. The negative results would influence capitalists who disregarded morality in the first place. In the end, everything would work out.

A real life situation would have more variables, of course, but I am simply trying to demonstrate that Eco-Terrorists, in destroying property, can be justified.

 

[Informal Logic]

I really don't know what you mean: no history class I ever took even asked the question of whether or not the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, and the two terms don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive. Since throwing tea over the side of a ship is not a straightforward violent crime like arson or tree spiking is, I think such a debate could be interesting, but the answer probably isn't as clear-cut as it is with ecoterrorism. I agree that the term is often misused, but I don't see how the fact that it is often misused implies that it should be misused.

In referring to a wide brush, I think he is saying property damage is property damage, and what one person sees as revolutionary (or a "freedom fighter"), another sees as terrorism.

The definition of terrorism has been debated many times in PF. If you want to argue that there are such things as eco-terrorists, then I can argue that the US is a terrorist state. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the term eco-terrorism is ridiculous on the spectrum of violence in the world.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It would tend to indicate that the American history classes taught for decades were wrong and that our founders were terrorists not patriots.

Terrorism is a tactic used by a range of groups including even governments. When an organization's modus operandi is primarily terror tactics one will generally refer to them as "terrorists"(note that several people who believe that the Bush administrations primary modus is a form terrorism like to refer to them as such).
The Boston Tea Party was the use of violence (destruction of property) to coerce the British Government. This would generally be considered a terrorist act. A later incarnation of the Sons of Liberty would even call for the assasination of Lincoln, going so far as to make it part of their motto. John Wilkes Booth was a member himself.
So do you think that the IRA and similar organizations were not referred to as Patriots by their people? Do you disagree that they used terrorist tactics as their modus? Do you somehow think that even if an organization uses terrorist tactics that they should not be refer to as such?
Just what exactly constitutes a terrorist in your eyes?

Timothy McVeigh definitely committed a terrorist act, but from a strictly legal point of view, if a 70 year old grandmother tosses a rock at a bulldozer, she has also committed a terrorist act.

You continue to sidestep and mischaracterize our argument. We are not the people who are putting little old ladies in jail for tossing a rock at a protest. We are simply saying that we do not think it is inappropriate to call people who make political statements through bombings, arson, and other manners of large scale property destruction terrorists. How you don't agree with this I have no idea.

 

[Skyhunter]

No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

Excuse me, but arson is a form of vandalism. An extreme form that carries a greater legal penalty, but still malicious destruction of property.

vandalism: the willful or malicious destruction or defacement of property

arson:malicious burning to destroy property;

I don't advocate or condone arson or vandalism. I agree with TSM that there are other ways to get a message out.

And can you provide any evidence of anyone ever being convicted of tree spiking?

How about an article about someone being killed or injured by tree spiking?

Terrorism is the use of violence to terrorize people.

Do you feel threatened by someone burning down an unoccupied building?

Are you actually afraid for your life and limb by the actions of a few radical environmentalists?

If not how can you say they are using terror as a tactic if they are not terrorizing anyone?

Do you really believe that the FBI should devote the largest amount of it's resources toward these people?

 

[russ_watters]

A. I should have been more specific. You are to assume chopping down the forest is the incorrect decision, by all logical indications, for the sake of the debate. In short, it is a hypothetical situation where the rainforest clearly needs to be preserved for the good of humanity. A few wealthy capitalist want to make an investment, and they disregard the greater good.

"by all logical indications"? I suspect you'll find quite a bit of general disagreement over whether a specific rainforest needs to be saved. So who gets to decide this matter? You? Me? The courts?

B. If destroying the equipment results in the benefit of humanity, then it is justified.

Setting aside for a moment the basic moral principle that violence is never justified, how does one decide when and how much violence is justified and who gets to decide it? How about shooting those capitalists who bought the forest - wouldn't that be more likely to succeed, since they can always get another buldozer? Is that justified? Why or why not?

 

[Bystander]

(snip)How about an article about someone being killed or injured by tree spiking?
(snip)

http://cwx.prenhall.com/velasquez/medialib/case7.pdf#search='tree%20spiking'
Don't ask me what's wrong with the link --- sawmill employee got 15' of busted bandsaw in the face and neck --- lived.

 

[russ_watters]

Excuse me, but arson is a form of vandalism.

And terrorism is a form of murder in some cases. That does not make them equivalent in general, just like calling arson "vandalism" does not make it equivalent to spray painting an SUV.

And can you provide any evidence of anyone ever being convicted of tree spiking?

Why would it make a difference whether anyone was ever convicted? Anyway, google, Skyhunter... http://www.cdfe.org/convicted.htm

How about an article about someone being killed or injured by tree spiking?

Again, google? Or how about just reading the wik link I posted before?

No, not a lot of people have been hurt, but some have. No, not a lot of people have been convicted, but some have. In general, spiked trees are marked - so that just makes it an overt terroristic threat.

Terrorism is the use of violence to terrorize people.

Read your own definitions, Skyhunter - the threat of violence is terrorism as well.

Do you feel threatened by someone burning down an unoccupied building?

I'm an engineer, Skyhunter - I'm often in buildings that are under construction. Yes, absolutely, that is an act of terrorism.

And by the way - you've made assertions about the motives of these terrorists while admitting you haven't bothered to check to see if they ever state their motive. That's argument from ignorance. When you do check, you will find that even major, supposedly legitimate groups like PETA condone violence against people. It doesn't matter if they haven't killed anyone yet - they want to and if we allow them the chance, eventually they will. In the meantime, it's still wrong to commit arson, intimidate, destroy property, etc.

Are you actually afraid for your life and limb by the actions of a few radical environmentalists?

I'm not a logger and I don't live in a place where ecoterrorism is common. If I were or did, I'd feel threatened.

If not how can you say they are using terror as a tactic if they are not terrorizing anyone?

Uh, because they are using it and they are terrorizing people.

I'm not a worrier in general, though, Skyhunter - Al Qaeda doesn't worry me either.

Do you really believe that the FBI should devote the largest amount of it's resources toward these people?

Yes, absolutely - and that has nothing to do with whether or not it can be classified as terrorism, Skyhunter. The "mere" fact that these actions are so widespread and common makes it an important problem for the FBI to deal with. Yeah, I think it is worthwhile for thousands of crimes to not be ignored.

You weighed ecoterrorism against the militias and the KKK - have either of those cost the US $110 million in damage over the past 10 years? Are attacks by either group on the rise? Ecoterrorism is a big and growing problem.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/

 

[edward]

Just what exactly constitutes a terrorist in your eyes?

Mohammed Atta! Now you may get get out your wide angle brush and use your over analytic interpretation to paint his picture with enough width to include the little old lady.

You continue to sidestep and mischaracterize our argument. We are not the people who are putting little old ladies in jail for tossing a rock at a protest.

I have side stepped nothing and the little old lady who throws the rock will be put in prison. What part of that don't you understand??

We are simply saying that we do not think it is inappropriate to call people who make political statements through bombings, arson, and other manners of large scale property destruction terrorists. How you don't agree with this I have no idea.

I can see your point, but again you are using a "one size fits all" approach to to try to fit tree huggers and Timothy McVeigh into the same monkey suit. Are environmental statements really political statements?? To me this is questionable.

From my point of view people who intentionally try to inflict death and great bodily harm fit the definition of terrorist. Actions less than that start to go into a gray area that includes, "a crime has been comitted", but it was definately not a terrorist act.

Some where a line must be drawn. My personel line is drawn when the intentional use of firearms or explosives enters the picture.

If a man gets angry with his landlord and burns his apartment as revenge, he is charged with arson, not terrorism. There are even degrees of arson and the man will be charged appropriately by local authorties.

The envirnmentalist on the other hand, who burns a bulldozer or is even only present when the equipment was burned, will experience the full wrath of the FBI and the federal governments terrorist laws.

The stricter laws pertainting to damage by protestors were passed at the behest of the construction and lumber industries. Do they deserve to have special laws passed just for them? In my opinion, no, they do not. They can use the same laws that the general population lives with.

 

[Skyhunter]

And terrorism is a form of murder in some cases. That does not make them equivalent in general, just like calling arson "vandalism" does not make it equivalent to spray painting an SUV. Why would it make a difference whether anyone was ever convicted?

You illustrate my point so eloquently.

Why should blowing up a federal building full of people be equivalent to the destruction of a transmission tower.

No, not a lot of people have been hurt, but some have. No, not a lot of people have been convicted, but some have. In general, spiked trees are marked - so that just makes it an overt terroristic threat.

There is that word again. You really believe that spiking a tree, to save it is an act of terrorism.

And how do you know that the trees were not spiked by anti-environmentalists trying to cast dispersions on environmentalists?

When you do check, you will find that even major, supposedly legitimate groups like PETA condone violence against people.

I have checked and PETA does not condone violence.

It doesn't matter if they haven't killed anyone yet - they want to and if we allow them the chance, eventually they will.

Wrong they do not want to hurt anyone, which is why they have not.

You weighed ecoterrorism against the militias and the KKK - have either of those cost the US $110 million in damage over the past 10 years?

I guess it depends on what you mean by the US. Did the US taxpayer foot the bill or did the insurance companies, many of which are multi-national.

Are attacks by either group on the rise? Ecoterrorism is a big and growing problem.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/

My assertion is that there is no such thing as ecoterrorism, so how could it be on the rise. Ecovandalism may be on the rise, even in extreme forms of firebombing and arson, but since they are not targeting people, they are not terrorists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I can see your point, but again you are using a "one size fits all" approach to to try to fit tree huggers and Timothy McVeigh into the same monkey suit. Are environmental statements really political statements?? To me this is questionable.

LOL! While trying to tell me that you are not mischaracterizing my argument you go ahead and mischaracterize it once again. Please show me where I have stated that "tree huggers" are terrorists. I think you are confusing me with Rush Limbaugh again.
Yes I think that environmental causes are political in nature. Do you find Greenpeace and the Green Party to be questionable?

I have side stepped nothing and the little old lady who throws the rock will be put in prison. What part of that don't you understand??

What part of the fact that I have neither advocated nor endorsed this do you not understand?

If a man gets angry with his landlord and burns his apartment as revenge, he is charged with arson, not terrorism. There are even degrees of arson and the man will be charged appropriately by local authorties.

The envirnmentalist on the other hand, who burns a bulldozer or is even only present when the equipment was burned, will experience the full wrath of the FBI and the federal governments terrorist laws.

One big difference you fail to recognize in your parallel is that the "Eco-Terrorist" belongs to and conspires with an organization whose ideology and aims are being expressed by the individuals criminal actions. The fact that this connection exists makes the issue larger than the singular incident. People involved in gangs and organized crime who commit offenses are charged differently than those who act as a lone agent. People who take part in "hate crimes" are charged differently then those with different aims and motives. Do you think that charges that have been adjusted to fit these crimes more "appropriately" are erroneous as well?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My assertion is that there is no such thing as ecoterrorism, so how could it be on the rise. Ecovandalism may be on the rise, even in extreme forms of firebombing and arson, but since they are not targeting people, they are not terrorists.

Why is the targeting of persons important to the definition of terrorism?
I agree that it's a worse thing to target people, but why does the targeting of people equate to terrorism while targeting of "property" is not?
If Al Queda stated that they hit the WTC early in the morning to avoid casualties and that their choice of target was mearly symbolic would you then consider their crimes, or intentions, to be something less than terrorism?

 

[SOS2008]

You people have got to be joking. Environmentalists who destroy property are not terrorists. As stated above (by edward) they are breaking the law like any other arson, vandal or what have you. A right-wing fundamentalist who bombs an abortion center resulting in death and/or injury—is that a terrorist?

 

[rachmaninoff]

You people have got to be joking. Environmentalists who destroy property are not terrorists. As stated above (by edward) they are breaking the law like any other arson, vandal or what have you. A right-wing fundamentalist who bombs an abortion center resulting in death and/or injury—is that a terrorist?

Refer back to the post by loseyourname on page one; do you disagree with his definition of "terrorism" or how he applies it here, and if so can you give a better one?

 

[X-43D]

Destroying thousands of forests with no need is also a crime against nature. Maybe not in the US but in other countries deforestation is becoming a serious issue.

http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/Envfacts/facts/deforestation.htm

 

[russ_watters]

You illustrate my point so eloquently.
Why should blowing up a federal building full of people be equivalent to the destruction of a transmission tower.

I never said it was. You are the one trying to cut-down the definition of terrorism while simultaneously condoning the actions that are wrong whether they are terrorism or not! It's almost like you think that if you can show that it isn't terrorism, then it isn't wrong. Sorry, but it's still wrong either way.

There is that word again. You really believe that spiking a tree, to save it is an act of terrorism.

Can you explain to me exactly how spiking a tree saves it without the threat of bodily harm to the logger trying to cut it down? It doesn't get any clearer-cut than that.

And how do you know that the trees were not spiked by anti-environmentalists trying to cast dispersions on environmentalists?

Now, that's just irrational. There isn't anything to argue if you are just going to choose to believe everything is a big conspiracy. And don't forget, you started this thread: The 'we can't be sure of anything' argument is useless for you to try to get people to agree with you. If you can't support your point with a logical argument and facts, there must be something wrong with it.

I have checked and PETA does not condone violence.

You must not have checked very hard. PETA even funds terrorists (ELF) and their defense in court. Closing you eyes, singing lalalalalalalala, and being willfully ignorant isn't going to change that. A few quotes:

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."
"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted, PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was using that money, bragging to
the staff that she had spent $25,000 on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.
A PeTA consultant won control of the Toronto Humane Society, endowed with $14 million, last fall through a proxy fight. One of her employees recently was arrested for possession of explosives and weapons, and vandalizing a restaurant that served chicken ...
David Arnold, "Fight Looms over Animal Rights Group," Boston Globe, April 10, 1987, p. 23.
PETA's point man on fur, Dan Matthews, said he admired serial killer Andrew Cunanan "because he got Versace to stop doing fur" -- that must have been some other Dan Matthews working for some other animal rights group.
Bruce Friedrich told an audience at Animal Rights 2001 that while he doesn't personally advocate animal rights terrorism, "I do advocate it, and I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation"

I won't bother posting the links to those quotes, since apparently you aren't looking at them anyway. But if you don't believe me and you really want to know rather than just speculate, assume, and fantasize, they are easy enough to Google.

I guess it depends on what you mean by the US. Did the US taxpayer foot the bill or did the insurance companies, many of which are multi-national.

How does that matter? You do understand how insurance works, right? If you get in a car accident, I (and everyone else with the same car insurance company) pay for it.

My assertion is that there is no such thing as ecoterrorism, so how could it be on the rise.

Heh, yeah - I assume I'm right, therefore I must be right.

Regardless, you made a second point - that the FBI shouldn't be putting so much effort into it. And...

Ecovandalism may be on the rise, even in extreme forms of firebombing and arson...

...so regardless of what you call it, it most certainly is worth the FBI's time.

And again, reread your own definitions of terrorism - people do not have to die in order for it to be terrorism.

 

[russ_watters]

In referring to a wide brush, I think he is saying property damage is property damage, and what one person sees as revolutionary (or a "freedom fighter"), another sees as terrorism.

But as others have noted, which it is depends mostly on the intent of the crime. One thing that Skyhunter is right about is that property destruction simply for the sake of property destruction is not terrorism.

The definition of terrorism has been debated many times in PF. If you want to argue that there are such things as eco-terrorists, then I can argue that the US is a terrorist state.

By all means, feel free...

If you want to talk about things like the atomic bomb of WWII, I'm comfortable with defining that as a terrorist act. Calling the US a "terrorist state" is a little different (it implies that terrorism is an essential component of our existence), but regardless - you won't find the double-standard you hare hoping to find with me.

 

[SOS2008]

Refer back to the post by loseyourname on page one; do you disagree with his definition of "terrorism" or how he applies it here, and if so can you give a better one?

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

As opposed to:

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

...Other acts, which are nonviolent in nature, cannot be properly referred to as "eco-terrorism" even though they might be annoying or disruptive to others. However, some definitions are raising controversy and civil rights issues by using an all-encompassing definition that could be interpreted to include virtually all environmental protests, even those that would otherwise be legal.

The brush is becoming too wide, and obviously used by certain folks with a certain agenda.

 

[Art]

Big business in the US has decided environmentalists are bad for their interests and so they have used their clout to persuade (or bribe) the US gov't to attack the environmentalists' structures.

Proscribing their organisations as terrorism allows the gov't massive leeway in smashing what was becoming a very popular movement by seizing their assets and being able to arrest and detain people without them having recourse to the courts. In fact as they are now labelled terrorists they can even be shipped off to Guantanamo bay for torture and indefinite detention.

Apart from allowing corporate America to dismantle the existing environmental groups it also scares away any potential new members as they are afraid of being labelled terrorists and so becoming subject to the provisions of the Patriot Act. (One wonders how many people realized that this act was going to be used in this way?)

On an international level the corporate powers have successfully stalled any attempt at US involvement in international environmental protection laws even going so far as to still deny the existence of global warming through greenhouse gasses despite the fact that respected publications such as New Scientist have said they will no longer publish letters from the crackpots who try to argue this case.

 

[Informal Logic]

But as others have noted, which it is depends mostly on the intent of the crime. One thing that Skyhunter is right about is that property destruction simply for the sake of property destruction is not terrorism. By all means, feel free...
If you want to talk about things like the atomic bomb of WWII, I'm comfortable with defining that as a terrorist act. Calling the US a "terrorist state" is a little different (it implies that terrorism is an essential component of our existence), but regardless - you won't find the double-standard you hare hoping to find with me.

I do not hope to find double standards, and this is the point of such labeling. And to that point:

State terrorism is a controversial concept that is without a clear definition (see below). Depending on definition it can include acts of violence or repressions perpetrated by a national government or its proxy. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the speaker considers the action justified or necessary, or whether it is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It may also depend on whether the speaker supports the government in question.

State terrorism, where it is considered to apply, may be directed at the state's own population or at others. It may be carried out by the state's own forces (such as army or police) or other organisations, where it is more usually called state sponsored terrorism.

United States
A number of critics have labeled actions of the United States of America as terrorism. For instance, the U.S. has taken sides in various foreign civil wars and conflicts, notably siding with Israel against other Middle East countries. Also the U.S. is often accused of working with and supporting countries, political organizations, and juntas with questionable human rights practices and intentions. The CIA, in particular, has been accused of supporting terrorist organizations in other countries. (See also: Operation Condor, Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism#United_States

One such critic has been the highly respected Noam Chomsky, excerpt from:

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State
An Interview with Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian

...There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm

And this was before recent scandals regarding prisoner treatment, secret prisons, rendition, and so forth.

I do not completely agree with these definitions, and this is the point. As with any civil rights issue, one must understand the motive and direction of the term eco-terrorism. Acceptance of pejorative terms for one group opens the door for misuse toward other groups…perhaps one day a group or cause you support or participate in that someone else is against and wants to suppress.

 

[SOS2008]

BTW, in reading definitions of terrorism in Wikipedia and the various types, under religious terrorism the KKK is included as "A group of racist Protestant Christian organizations with a history of violence against blacks, Jews, and Catholics."

Getting back to Bill O'Reilly and a recent broadcast on FOX News with Jerry Fallwell and claims there is a "war on Christmas," some education officials of targeted public schools have received hateful mail of all sorts, as well as guest Rev. Barry Lynn, including death threats. And then there is Pat Robertson...

I'll take a left-wing environmentalist over these blockheads any day. Hmm, or should I say Evangeli-terrorism? Well you get the drift (maybe)...

 

[rachmaninoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
As opposed to:

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

Selective boldfacing of quotes doesn't change their meaning. Reread your own quote (now with my emphases):

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

If you're trying to attack what Rush Limbaugh's followers say, that's entirely besides the point:

I will not advocate the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who describe non-criminal protesters as "terrorists".

I think you are confusing me with Rush Limbaugh again.

 

[SOS2008]

Selective boldfacing of quotes doesn't change their meaning.

I am well aware of the entire text, all of which I included with intent. The portions in bold are made bold in accordance with my point that the term is being misused and blown out of proportion.

If you're trying to attack what Rush Limbaugh's followers say, that's entirely besides the point:

Providing an example of how such terms could be used in regard to other groups (Evangeli-terrorism) is completely relevant. Causing divisiveness, or even inciting people to violence (e.g., Robertson’s call for assassination of Chavez) is damaging. But like environmentalists, it is not what we all know real terrorism is, and at least in the case of global warming, the environmentalists have a worthy cause.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You people have got to be joking. Environmentalists who destroy property are not terrorists. As stated above (by edward) they are breaking the law like any other arson, vandal or what have you.

As stated by me above the circumstances of the crimes are not of the same nature as just any other vandal or arsonist.
Considering the position you are taking do you think it is wrong to charge people with "hate crimes" or charge them differently when they are engaging in illegal activities that are a part of organized crime or gang activity or some conspiracy that is more complex than the singular incident?
If you do think that the augmentation of charges to appropriately reflect such things as motive and being party to a larger more complex organization of criminal activity then why would you fail to agree when it comes to a certain group of people?

A right-wing fundamentalist who bombs an abortion center resulting in death and/or injury—is that a terrorist?

YES! And why would I think otherwise? Why would you?
Do you think that people here who are anti-abortion may side with anti-abortion "terrorists" and say that their actions aren't a form of terrorism just because you would do so with the people whose aims you agree with? And even if they did then would you agree with them to hold hypocritical beliefs on how people should be charged and punished?

Lets use your change up of scenario then.
I think that people who bomb abortion clinics should be charged with committing a terrorist act. If you don't agree please explain to me why.
Or better yet...
An environmentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
An Anarchist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Christian Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Muslim Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
Tell me here, in all seriousness, what the hell is the difference aside from their ideological alignments?

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).

I just wanted to point out that this definition is not a very appropriate one. When someone uses tactics outside "conventional warfare" and the "laws of war" that would usually mean that a war is going on and such combatents are referred to as a Guerillas. Terrorist generally is not used in reference to people engaged in a war but those engaged in violent political protest outside of war.

 

[SOS2008]

As stated by me above the circumstances of the crimes are not of the same nature as just any other vandal or arsonist.
Considering the position you are taking do you think it is wrong to charge people with "hate crimes" or charge them differently when they are engaging in illegal activities that are a part of organized crime or gang activity or some conspiracy that is more complex than the singular incident?

If you do think that the augmentation of charges to appropriately reflect such things as motive and being party to a larger more complex organization of criminal activity then why would you fail to agree when it comes to a certain group of people?

YES! And why would I think otherwise? Why would you?
Do you think that people here who are anti-abortion may side with anti-abortion "terrorists" and say that their actions aren't a form of terrorism just because you would do so with the people whose aims you agree with? And even if they did then would you agree with them to hold hypocritical beliefs on how people should be punished?
Lets use your change up of scenario then.
I think that people who bomb abortion clinics should be charged with committing a terrorist act. If you don't agree please explain to me why.
Or better yet...
An environmentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
An Anarchist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Christian Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Muslim Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
Tell me here, in all seriousness, what the hell is the difference aside from their ideological alignments?

I just wanted to point out that this definition is not a very appropriate one. When someone uses tactics outside "conventional warfare" and the "laws of war" that would usually mean that a war is going on and such combatents are referred to as a Guerillas. Terrorist generally is not used in reference to people engaged in a war but those engaged in violent political protest outside of war.

Exactly. My position is that a line needs to be drawn between merely breaking the law (arson, vandalism, inciting people to violence, even when resulting in murder, even assassination, etc.) and terrorism--regardless of motive. Terms such as arson, murder, etc. exist for this reason.

To the contrary, unconventional war is a very good way to differentiate.

Unconventional warfare (UW) …is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict. On the surface, UW contrasts with conventional warfare in that: forces or objectives are covert or not well-defined, tactics and weapons intensify environments of subversion or intimidation, and the general or long-term goals are coercive or subversive to a political body.

...Unconventional warfare seeks to instill a belief that peace and security are not possible without compromise or concession. Objectives include war weariness, curtailment of civilian standards of living and civil liberties associated with greater security demands, economic hardship linked to the costs of war; hopelessness to defend against assaults, fear, depression, and disintegration of morale. The ultimate goal of this type of warfare is to motivate an enemy to stop attacking or resisting even if it has the ability to continue. Failing this, a secondary objective can be to emasculate the enemy before a conventional invasion.

For more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_Warfare And in which unconventional warfare and terrorism are cross referenced.

IMO, Al Qaeda is conducting an unconventional war. Furthermore, recent terrorist acts in Jordan are a very good example of “coordinated attacks” characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.

On the spectrum of things I cannot see environmentalists, or any of the other groups you listed in the same classification.

 

[Skyhunter]

I never said it was. You are the one trying to cut-down the definition of terrorism while simultaneously condoning the actions that are wrong whether they are terrorism or not! It's almost like you think that if you can show that it isn't terrorism, then it isn't wrong. Sorry, but it's still wrong either way.

You are the one who said that my statement that arson is not vandalism was factually wrong. I never condoned the violent actions of ELF or ALF, saying that I did is an outright lie and you know it. My point is, and has been, that to characterize these people as terrorists is an exaggeration.

It is also a double standard since the people bombing abortion clinics are not considered terrorists by the FBI.

Can you explain to me exactly how spiking a tree saves it without the threat of bodily harm to the logger trying to cut it down?

If a tree has a spike, it is of no value since there is no easy way to remove the spike or tell if there are any more. The cost to replace a saw blade at the lumber mill makes the it economically unfeasible.

Now, that's just irrational. There isn't anything to argue if you are just going to choose to believe everything is a big conspiracy. And don't forget, you started this thread: The 'we can't be sure of anything' argument is useless for you to try to get people to agree with you. If you can't support your point with a logical argument and facts, there must be something wrong with it.

Excuse me. Your the one who brought up tree spiking. So I will defer to your opinion about supporting an argument with facts.
The rest I won't respond to because it is ad hominem. And unlike a "super mentor", I can't get away with it.