Eco-terrorism

[Falcoknight]

Discuss your views on it. Is it bad enough to be labelled terrorism as the FBI has, or is it simply like any other belief where there a few radicals and the entire situation is blown out of proportion? Any other opinions and information are welcome.

 

I personally think they're a bunch of bat!@#$%^&* crazy hippies, but I've got about 130 pages of articles, speeches, etc. to read through right now, so I'll post more in-depth after that.

 

I love late nights spent doing research -_-

[rootbear75]

give me a dictionary definition of "eco-terrorism" and i will be able to expand

[Falcoknight]

Basically it's committing acts of terrorism in the name of saving the environment.

[rootbear75]

Basically it's committing acts of terrorism in the name of saving the environment.

i consider that 1) stupid, 2) a waste of time, and 3) people who do that are morons... they remind me of the radical suicide bombers

[Falcoknight]

Well the controversy arises over whether or not the way their actions are dealt with is fair in any way.

One point to make is that the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front are both considered terrorist groups by the FBI, and are frequently referred to as being the biggest domestic threat facing America. Yet no one has ever died as a result of an "act of ecoterrorism" so how come "ecoterrorists" get multiple life sentences for committing crimes that only damage property and often don't actually endanger the life of any person at all, along with being labeled terrorists or members of terrorist organizations?

And why are those labels thrown onto ALF and ELF but not attached to White Supremacist groups, or radical anti-abortion groups, both of whom have actually killed people?

 

No one disagrees that they are radicals (correction, no one sane) but many believe the government is taking it too far by condemning them as terrorists, handing out over the top penalties, and in some states pushing legislature that will actually make the death penalty a viable punishment for an act of ecoterrorism (again, note that no one has ever been killed in any of these acts of "terrorism").

 

James Jarboe, the chief of the FBI's counterterrorism division, defined ecoterrorism as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, sub national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”

 

These definitions of terrorism open the door to violent acts against property only being defined as acts of terrorism, and go against the accepted definition promoted by the International Policy Ins!@#$%^&*ute for Counter-Terrorism, which states that “the targets of terrorism are civilians” and stresses the fact that the acts are usually purposely directed against civilians.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Falcoknight

[JDS]

eco-terrorism?

 

no. there is no terrorism involved. These hippies are just doing what they can to fight the man and save what is precious to them. Fight on !

[Falcoknight]

Actually, surprisingly JDS, you're pretty much right.

 

Ecoterrorism was a concept basically made up the U.S. government to be a way to kill the environmentalist movement.

They use the label of ecoterrorism to get outrageous charges against anyone who commits a crime in the name of the environment.

 

For example, one guy who torched 3 brand new pickup trucks, environmentalist, first time offender, but his actions, because he was doing it for the environment and protesting gas guzzling vehicles, led to him getting 23 years in jail, even though no person was harmed or put in danger.

 

Another person sets 30 forest fires so they can get overtime fighting the fires they set, putting in danger the lives of dozens of firefighters and anyone who lived in the area, and what do they get? 3 years.

[Aileron]

The sentence for torching the trucks was fair - it's about the same as what you would get for three counts of grand theft auto. Actually the arson sentence is what was messed up - that guy should've gotten 30 years or so.

 

Okay, the judicial system is messed up. So, what's new? Some sentences are way too light, hence the big push to put mandatory sentences on certain crimes. If I recall there was also a rape case where some guy raped a 4-yr old and got a 2-year sentence, or something like that. Those are caused by certain activist judges who need to be fired. These cases however, are not the norm, and are not a valid motivation to give other criminals lighter sentences.

 

As for "squashing the environmentalist movement", such radicals actually damage their cause in more of a degree than any democratic governing body even is even capable. There actions make their fellows look more radical.

 

Sure, that's how every fair-minded level headed rational person deals with others - if they disagree with you, burn their property. We all know that at!@#$%^&*ude is one step away from actually harming others. Eco-terrorists are a force of oppression, just as the white supremacists were (the white supremacists are at most a dying movement, hence why they aren't much of a threat). Eco-terrorists have their opinion and they can't tolerate anyone else having a different opinion.

[Samapico]

[Falcoknight]