Letters to the Editor
-
Political motivation does not equal terrorism
Burning down an environmental research facility may not be the best way to stop ecological destruction. In fact it may be completely boneheaded.
But the act wasn't directed at an otherwise uninvolved civilian population with the intent of inducing panic and swaying public opinion. It was directed at the environmental research itself, with the intention of stopping it by reducing it to hot ash.
We have a name for that sort of crime. We call it "arson," and it doesn't matter why they did it. If someone had died, we'd call it "murder," and it still wouldn't matter why they did it (only whether it was premeditated). Neither arson nor murder are terrorism.
If you attack me because you think I'm doing something wrong and need to be stopped, that isn't terrorism. It just isn't. We can argue about whether it's justifiable, when it might be self-defense and when it might be assault, and so on. But it's not terrorism — unless by "terrorism" you simply mean "bad things."
The ethical poverty of the national discussion of terror and crime has opened the door to absurd abuses by those interested in putting an end to public discourse, stifling dissent, and eliminating threats to the systems of economic exploitation that have been so profitable for them in the past.
Why is it so hard to understand this? We're talking about someone's private property being destroyed by someone else who isn't happy with them. If my neighbor cuts back my bushes because she hates my hippie ways, is that terrorism?