Deadly Traps in Wharton SF

Status
Not open for further replies.

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Nobody should be trying to harm other people in the name of protecting the environment. Anybody who does that sort of thing is a criminal, plain and simple, and they certainly don't represent the broader community of conservationists.

Even so, I think it's important to notice that someone who burns down a house (assuming no-one was in there!) is an arsonist, not a terrorist. He should be arrested and convicted of arson. Whether or not he has achieved anything in the way of protecting the environment, the broader environmental community consistently and emphatically opposes such tactics.

But this term "eco-terrorism" is mostly a mis-nomer. A terrorist is someone who tries to terrorize people by killing indiscrimately.

By the same token, if someone sets booby-traps on their property to fend off tresspassers, that is stupid and illegal, and it ought to be punished. But it isn't "eco-terrorism."
 

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,330
1,097
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
But this term "eco-terrorism" is mostly a mis-nomer. A terrorist is someone who tries to terrorize people by killing indiscrimately.

By the same token, if someone sets booby-traps on their property to fend off tresspassers, that is stupid and illegal, and it ought to be punished. But it isn't "eco-terrorism."
Stringing wire across a trail at neck height with the intent to decapitate someone certainly sounds like indiscriminate killing to me.

Actually, I like the definition of terrorism that Wikipedia has: ideologically motivated acts of violence with the intention to intimidate governments or civilians.

It's interesting to note that the term eco-terrorism pre-dates 9/11, so you can't accuse anybody of trying to jump onto the 9/11 bandwagon with the term.
 

BobNJ1979

Explorer
May 31, 2007
190
0
16
Stringing wire across a trail at neck height with the intent to decapitate someone certainly sounds like indiscriminate killing to me.

Actually, I like the definition of terrorism that Wikipedia has: ideologically motivated acts of violence with the intention to intimidate governments or civilians.

It's interesting to note that the term eco-terrorism pre-dates 9/11, so you can't accuse anybody of trying to jump onto the 9/11 bandwagon with the term.
i agree with you ben..
 
Mar 1, 2008
40
0
6
their good cause is to save earth? that's what i assume.

i hope to never come across rusty wire strung up along any trails,

careful riding you pinies
 

grendel

Explorer
Feb 24, 2006
561
2
18
Fredericksburg VA
their good cause is to save earth? that's what i assume.

i hope to never come across rusty wire strung up along any trails,

careful riding you pinies
you can save the earth by burning down houses? Who exactly does the earth need to be saved from? People? If that is the case maybe ELF should set the "good" example and remove themselves from poor planet earth.
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Stringing wire across a trail at neck height with the intent to decapitate someone certainly sounds like indiscriminate killing to me.

Actually, I like the definition of terrorism that Wikipedia has: ideologically motivated acts of violence with the intention to intimidate governments or civilians.

It's interesting to note that the term eco-terrorism pre-dates 9/11, so you can't accuse anybody of trying to jump onto the 9/11 bandwagon with the term.
I suppose everything depends on the details and circumstances. If a landowner is trying to stop people from trespassing on his land, then he isn't ideologically motivated, nor would he be killing indiscriminately. If somebody got killed by his wire, the landowner would be guilty of murder, not "eco-terrorism."

If an extremist environmental group like ELF burns down a building, I suppose you could consider that a form of violence, but since it isn't calculated to injure any people, it doesn't measure up to any other form of violence that we usually think of as terrorism. It's not even in the same ballpark as blowing up a building or an aircraft with people inside. It's arson. Charge them with arson. Throw them in jail. But don't lump them in with terrorists. That's ridiculous. The terrorist charge in this case is just a ticket to give the government exceptional abilities to spy on them.

And I didn't say anything about any bandwagon or 911!

I am starting to get thirsty again, though!!!:guinness:
 

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,330
1,097
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
Sure, but we're talking about folks that are stringing wires across trails on public property with the intent to kill ATV riders. This happens all over the place -- not just the Pine Barrens -- and in places that are legal to ride ATV's.

Anyway, if you're going to burn down a building, what measures are these people taking to ensure that no lives are going to be lost? It's hard for me to excuse the actions of someone burning down a building just because they're not killing people at the same time.

Anybody who wants to use violence to promote their ideological agenda is a terrorist. You don't need to be from the middle east or Southern Asia to be a terrorist. I'd consider the (American) people who stockpile guns and call for the violent overthrow of the US government terrorists. I'd call the IRA a terrorist organization.

Anybody who wants to hurt innocent people and burn down buildings should be spied upon by the government.
 

MarkBNJ

Piney
Jun 17, 2007
1,886
64
1,028
Long Valley, NJ
www.markbetz.net
But this term "eco-terrorism" is mostly a mis-nomer. A terrorist is someone who tries to terrorize people by killing indiscrimately.
I thoroughly disagree :). Terrorism is simply the desire to achieve political reform by creating terror. It fits the burning of houses by the ELF to a 'T'.
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Anybody who does anything violent (including acts that are just destructive to property), so long as the act is stimulated by some ideology, is a terrorist?
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Pretty much so.
So, let's test the definition against a few examples. If I am wearing a leather jacket, and an animal rights person comes up behind me and ruins it with spray paint, that person is a terrorist?

Or, how about if someone is a white supremicist, and he burns up an empty church belonging to a congregation of black people?

Or, how about if we so thoroughly disagree with each other over some political issue that we end up in a fist fight. We are both terrorists?
 

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,330
1,097
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
1. Is this act a one-off or is it part of a larger set of actions designed to scare people into not wearing leather?

2. Yes

3. No, that's two people being jerks.

Not every violent action = terrorisim. But if you have someone that's so blinded by ideology that they are willing to do whatever it takes to convince other people that their way of thinking is right, I'm pretty much willing to lump them into the "terrorist" category. The word is most commonly associated with Al-Queda and other radical Muslim groups, but really you can say that the ELF/ALF/etc. are just as radical as they are.

Even then you have to look at the irony of the amount of pollution created by burning buildings. Think of all of the pollutants from the burnt plastics, wiring, insulation, etc. WTG, ELF. You're really saving the Earth now!

Russ, I have a feeling we'd have a pretty interesting conversation over a few drinks. :)
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
1. Is this act a one-off or is it part of a larger set of actions designed to scare people into not wearing leather?
2. Yes
3. No, that's two people being jerks.
Not every violent action = terrorisim. But if you have someone that's so blinded by ideology that they are willing to do whatever it takes to convince other people that their way of thinking is right, I'm pretty much willing to lump them into the "terrorist" category. The word is most commonly associated with Al-Queda and other radical Muslim groups, but really you can say that the ELF/ALF/etc. are just as radical as they are.
Even then you have to look at the irony of the amount of pollution created by burning buildings. Think of all of the pollutants from the burnt plastics, wiring, insulation, etc. WTG, ELF. You're really saving the Earth now!

Russ, I have a feeling we'd have a pretty interesting conversation over a few drinks. :)
Okay, it seems we are agreed that the definition I proposed above is too broad. Now, you are proposing that an essential element of terrorism is that the action must be perpetrated by "someone that's so blinded by ideology that they are willing to do whatever it takes to convince other people that their way of thinking is right." That would seem to include the animal rights spray-paint job, even if it's a one time deal. It would also exclude the church arson case, wouldn't it? That would seem to be inspired by a simple desire to intimidate rather than a desire to convince anyone of anything.

I'll try a new definition :confused:, and you can critique me! And yes, I think this would be a lot more fruitful over a few beers.

"Terrorism is an act or series of actions (regardless of the motive) calculated to inspire terror in one or more victims."

Since "terrorism" is obviously derived from the root "terror" it seems to me the concept of terror (a state of intense fear) must be an essential element in a proper definition. It also seems to me that if nobody is really terrified by the action, then the action can't be properly construed as terrorism.
 

BobNJ1979

Explorer
May 31, 2007
190
0
16
dont' back down ben.. i think i'm starting to see him sway :dance:

we really need a bicker and banter section on here :rofl:

more importantly, why aren't you guys out enjoying the pine barrens ? I have an excuse, i'm studying for an exam tomorrow.. it's gorgeous outside..
 

Ben Ruset

Administrator
Site Administrator
Oct 12, 2004
7,330
1,097
1,093
41
Asbury Park, NJ
Yeah, Russ we should continue this in private or over the aforementioned beers.

We should be talking about something that we ALL agree on, the Pines!
 

russell juelg

Explorer
Jul 31, 2006
158
0
16
Yeah, Russ we should continue this in private or over the aforementioned beers.

We should be talking about something that we ALL agree on, the Pines!
As you wish. I'll be happy to continue in different forum or a different time and place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.