Letters to the Editor
-
re: how can it be terrorism if you aren't terrified?
What makes you think the target of this action - the researchers - aren't terrified?
-
re: So all one needs to be doing is pursuing a political agenda, and any crime becomes terrorism?
This was a a criminal act of political intimidation - to the researchers as well as the institution. Add to that that some enviromental activists have ramped up the violence and injured people when mere vandalism fails - and this amounts to terrorism.
But whatever - this is not your ox being gored so you're flip...
-
I have to side with the victim here.
Burning down a building in this case is barely a crime. It's more of a call to attention. All over the world we watch, some of us participate, in protests and demonstrations that involve this kind of direct action. And it's no big deal. If there were more of this it could only be a good thing.
-
You tried to tell me that I would want my arsonist neighbor convicted as a terrorist because I was so violated
oh please find where i typed such words, I did not. Just who is projecting ?
The fact is, NONE of us would like our home or work to be bombed by someone just because we have different --albeit legal-- beliefs and lifestyles. It's never right, be it done by KKKers, or ELFs. It infringes on our own right to live our lifes as we legally choose. It is violence forced on us regardless of the sincerity of the offender. Everyone believes THEir cause is rightous, elfs, fundamentalists, terrorists.
-
ikuiku on acts of violence and other inconvenient terms
Any act of violence, whether directed at persons or property, done to further a political agenda is terrorism.
First of all, violence is only directed at someone else. Property is merely damaged or destroyed.
In other words, contrary to what you might hear from insurance company bean counters and corporate lawyers, property is not as sacred as people — not even people who are liberals. Shocking, I realize.
So right off the bat we have a problem. Graffitti constitutes damage or destruction of property — just like arson. So by your definition, in what way is political graffitti not "terrorism"?
"It's not as bad," I hear you say. But by what standard? Easier to repair? Less inconvenient? Generates less smoke? How do we decide what the threshold is for politically motivated crimes to be "terrorism?"
Vandalism is wanton "destruction" simply for the "hell of it."
Also wrong. Look it up.
Burning down a building because you do not like the activities associated with it is done to intimidate the people undertaking the activities connected to the building.
"Associated with"?? What kind of weasel words are those? If you have an argument to make, make it. Don't start wussing out.
If I randomly blow up a prominent office tower full of people as a way of striking fear into the hearts of their neighbors and countrymen, that is terrorism. If I beat up a local pimp because I'm tired of the degrading lifestyle he represents, I may be many things (political, a criminal vigilante, violent, an idiot) but I am not a terrorist.
-
@Electro Robot
Burning down a building in this case is barely a crime. It's more of a call to attention. All over the world we watch, some of us participate, in protests and demonstrations that involve this kind of direct action. And it's no big deal. If there were more of this it could only be a good thing.
Um...yes, it's still a crime.
The issue is how much it can really be considered terrorism or not.
My take on it is that if this is being prosecuted and treated as genuine terrorism, then the threshhold for what constitutes "terrorism" is being applied in a horribly arbitrary way, as many acts of much worse nature for the same purpose of pushing an ideological and/or political point aren't treated as such.
-
re: First of all, violence is only directed at someone else. Property is merely damaged or destroyed.
So burning a cross in someone's yard is just vandalism - while destroying someone's work is not directed at them - it's just a pile of papers?
Keep trying...
I like your efforts...
-
MAYEBE YES...MAYBE NO
The people who burn down buildings, blow up government buildings, fly airplanes into buildings, send anthrax in the mail, burn up houses as a means of protest, keep women and children followers hostage while they shoot enforcement officers serving them with warrants, start forest fires, bomb clinics and kill doctors,are all terrorists, domestic and otherwise.
Tell me, what is the difference between exploding a university building and bombing a federal building? Or what is the difference between bombing a clinic and shooting law enforcement personnel on your doorstep delivering a warrant for your arrest (Waco)? The only difference is the cause.
Witnesses put her there. The jury heard all the evidence, I presume, including how those witnesses changed their initial stories. Then again, the majority ended up changing their stories for reduced time, didn't they? Why would these two witnesses put her there if she wasn't there? The jurors they believed she was there.
-
definition
terorism:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Sure sounds like what they did.
-
Hypocrisy
I just don't understand how people can say that:
Both (1) Violence against and intimidation of a civilian population for political/ideological purposes is always wrong.
And (2) Legislation and law enforcement are sometimes okay.
With minor exceptions (laws regarding the actions of government officials), (2) is a subset of (1).
I am a strict pacifist. I am not convinced that there are any justified cases of (1). But those of you who assert the legitimacy of legislation and law enforcement assert the legitimacy of certain forms of violence and intimidation against a civilian population for certain ideological purposes.
What worries me about the ELF (not EF!) is that it acts too much like the FBI.
-
Mister Buck on convenience, and ramping up
"It took firefighters two hours to put out the flames. By that time the office where the fire had started had burned down to the studs, and the central hall and several botany labs were damaged. Damages were estimated at $2.5 million."
I like your definition of inconvenience - to me burning down a research lab is FAR from inconvenient...
This is almost incoherent, but what you seem to be trying to say is that if it's really expensive and it requires a lot of time and attention by firefighters, then it must be terrorism.
Technically your definition also includes the WTC attacks, so I suppose you could argue that it's more than 0% useful. That still doesn't cut it though. Try again.
Oh, wait, you did:
Add to that that some enviromental activists have ramped up the violence and injured people when mere vandalism fails - and this amounts to terrorism.
"Injured people..." you should meet the other guy here with the weasel words. You'd get along great. Which people are you talking about? What kind of injuries? I don't know about you, but where I live hurting someone to make them stop doing something that they're in the middle of doing doesn't make you a terrorist.
In fact, it might mean you were a cop.