Are Environmental Extremists "Terrorists"?

[yoshomon]

They didn't hurt anybody—but they allegedly torched empty buildings, cars, and ski resorts. Are environmental extremists terrorists? And do they deserve life in prison?

BY THOMAS FRANCIS

Chelsea Gerlach's hair is long in her 1993 South Eugene High School sophomore yearbook photo, and she's got a wholesome smile. But in the back pages, in a picture that must have been taken months later, Gerlach's dark hair is cropped short and she is scowling. Her black T-shirt declares in white lettering: RESIST.

Stanislas Meyerhoff is standing next to her in the second photo. A blazer obscures the slogan on his T-shirt.

Gerlach is quoted in a short article about the school's environmental groups: "Our generation was born to save the earth," she says. "If we wait until we're out of school it might be too late."

The city of Eugene, Oregon, has a homely, rugged charm. National media types portray an underground seething with anarchists, an image owed partly to Eugene-based radicals having claimed credit for mayhem at the 1999 World Trade Organization protest in Seattle. But in reality, Eugene—being geographically remote and anchored by the University of Oregon—is merely an ideal place to be an idealist.

But South Eugene High, just a half-mile from the UO campus, apparently wasn't a fertile breeding ground for ecopolitical activism. In the yearbook of Gerlach's senior year, she provides the solitary eulogy for the short-lived Student Coalition for Action and Peace Education (SCAPE): "I was eventually the only one in the club, and I couldn't find anyone else who was interested."

Not that she was a loner. Gerlach and Meyerhoff maintained a shared interest in environmental issues long after high school. The pair is accused of playing roles in at least six cases of arson—including the one that claimed the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture.

On January 20, FBI Director Robert Mueller held a press conference to announce the indictment of 11 "ecoterrorists." He said that Gerlach, Meyerhoff, and the others charged represent "extremist movements whose criminal acts threaten the American economy and American lives."

Are Gerlach and Meyerhoff terrorists? Usually, that term defines radicals who randomly kill innocent people as a way to make their point. No lives were lost and no injuries occurred in any of the 17 crimes named in the "ecoterrorism" indictment, nor did their cumulative effect create a ripple in the national economy. And while the two groups with which the accused are allegedly aligned—Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF)—have a history of violence, they have no history of harming people.

Still, "terrorism" is the label being used by the FBI and federal prosecutors, and they intend to seek the maximum penalty: life imprisonment. In his press conference, Mueller said he hopes the penalties will have a "dramatic impact on persons who contemplate these crimes." ...

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=29472

[the happy prole]

If you keep torching and bombing (incompetently) eventually someone's going to die. If you keep mailing death threats to people eventually someone will follow through. At that point, I don't have a problem with prosecuting them under some of the terrorist/organized violence laws.

But unfortunately, a lot of environmentalists are receiving ridiculous sentences via laws that were meant for Al Qaeda types and all they are doing is blowing up unoccupied vehicles. They're criminals who should be prosecuted, but life sentences are kind of ridiculous.

I remember when that ELF group with Wade, Linas, and Blackwell(?) got caught in Richmond. I think they all got three years in prison, which I thought was pretty fair.

[yoshomon]

I remember when that ELF group with Wade, Linas, and Blackwell(?) got caught in Richmond. I think they all got three years in prison, which I thought was pretty fair.

Linas is at a half-way house now. I corresponded with him briefly while he was in prison, and he seemed like a nice guy. Wade is still in prison and gets out in 2007.

From what I can put together, Blackwell never got prison time. I'm not sure if he snitched or what... maybe he was a junvenile?

I think that the folks in the ELF and ALF are brave and compassionate. In a time when hundreds of species are going extinct every week, we're rapidly losing ecosystems that take thousands of years to be created, and the abuse and exploitation of animals is only getting worse... I think it's pretty damn cool they're willing to put their freedom on the line to defend the earth. I'm definitely critical of some actions and think that debating how effective they are makes sense, but to denounce them (and at the same time doing nothing to halt the logging corporations, factory farms, and biochemical businesses that are destroying the world we live in and endangering all of us) just doesn't make sense to me.

How bad does it have to get before you'll support people breaking the law to defend the environment? When all the old growth is gone? When genetically modified plants have displaced or tampered with every field and bioregion in the world? When climate change reaches the point of "there's nothing we can do, we're all fucked"?

To me, defending the earth is a matter of self-defense.

[Studebaker289]

People that torch automobiles and companys, DO NOT MAKE ANY GOOD IMPACTS ON ME. as a matter of fact I am more turned off to the cause when the actions they take are compareable to a child throwing a tantrum.

These are childish ways of getting your point across.. there for I have lost respect and don't want to hear your message.

[BigSugar]

So, if Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 9/11 Islamof#ckwads had stolen empty planes and flown them into empty buildings and not a single innocent person had died, would it make the actions any less "terrorist" acts?? If the Oklahoma Federal Building had been empty when McVeigh detonated the truck and noone died, would he have been any less a terrorist??

If you indiscriminately discharge a firearm in a public place, yet noone is hurt, you can still be charged with attempted murder, even if you had no intent to hit or hurt anyone. Does that crime warrant 20 years to life in prison? I mean, afterall, noone was hurt.

to answer your rhetorical question: Yes, eco-terrorists deserve whatever punishment the law provides for their actions. If that is life in prison, then so be it. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

[monkey neck]

To me, defending the earth is a matter of self-defense.

That's noble and all, and I agree with you to a point. And I even chuckled a bit when I saw the lot of Hummers getting torched. But as their ire grows, they will become more dangerous. And their ire will grow with more resistance from the gubment due to the prosecution of their criminal acts. I'm not sure I'd call them terrorists, but how do you draw the line? Whether it's religious fundamentalism or violence for a good cause, it's still a crime and will be prosecuted.

[yoshomon]

So, if Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 9/11 Islamof#ckwads had stolen empty planes and flown them into empty buildings and not a single innocent person had died, would it make the actions any less "terrorist" acts?? If the Oklahoma Federal Building had been empty when McVeigh detonated the truck and noone died, would he have been any less a terrorist??

But why play these hypotheticals? People were in those planes and buildings. People were in the Federal Building. The hijackers and McVeigh (and his white power buddies) knew people were in that building. All of those Islamo-fascists and neo-nazi terrorists intended to kill a lot of people.

The ELF has existed for more than a decade, done hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, and has yet to even injure anyone. As a group, they are pretty explicitly against harming humans (or animals) and their track record backs this up.

I think any group which specifically sets out not to hurt anyone can't really be put into the terrorist category. Unless we want to equate cars and buildings with the lives of people...

[yoshomon]

These are childish ways of getting your point across...

Would you rather they sign petitions or walk around with a sign in their hand chanting? It should be pretty clear at this point that those kinds of things are not getting the job done.

The suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the fight to end apartheid, and the abolitionist movement ALL had illegal elements to them. No doubt many people called these "childish" and "extreme" (not sure if they used the T word back then), but looking back at them now we consider the people who did them heroes.

[BigSugar]

But why play these hypotheticals? People were in those planes and buildings. People were in the Federal Building. The hijackers and McVeigh (and his white power buddies) knew people were in that building. All of those Islamo-fascists and neo-nazi terrorists intended to kill a lot of people.

The ELF has existed for more than a decade, done hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, and has yet to even injure anyone. As a group, they are pretty explicitly against harming humans (or animals) and their track record backs this up.

I think any group which specifically sets out not to hurt anyone can't really be put into the terrorist category. Unless we want to equate cars and buildings with the lives of people...

It's called the law of unintended consequences. Are you telling me that not a single firefighter or police officer has been injured, maimed or killed in fighting any of the destruction they've wrought? If a firefighter falls through the roof of a burning building fighting an ELF fire, is it excused b/c they didn't "intend" to hurt anyone? What if i take a rifle, find a nice cozy bell-tower and start popping off rounds, but specifically aim away from people....what if one of those bullets ricochets by pure accident and kills someone. Am i less responsible for the death b/c i specifically didn't aim at the person?? of course not.

and you've avoided my question. It's a valid hypothetical. What if Atta and McVeight specifically planned and timed their attacks so that noone would die and in fact, they did all that damage with no loss of life or injury?? your avoidance of the answer to this question tells me something.......but please, would you consider them simply "freedom fighters" versus "terrorists"? would life in prison be too harsh for those crimes?? I mean, afterall, they were only buildings, right? if noone dies, then it's not terrorism, right? I'd really like your answer....

[Candyass]

I used to really love the concept of monkeywrenching. Read lots of Edward Abbey and David Foreman. Then I developed some sort of feminist conciousness and realized most of the men involved in radical environmentalism or deep ecology, were fucking sexist pigs.

Then to make matters worse, I know people who had labs at University of Washington's urban horticulture building. When that building went up...people lost YEARS of research. They burned it down because they thought there was genetic engineering of Populus trees for the forestry industry. They were doing research on faster growing trees, but they were not genetically engineered, they were hybrids. And furthermore, there were scientists in that building that did research on rare and invasive plants which one would argue is research beneficial to the environment. One sidenote though, when the authorities showed up, the arsonists had gone through the whole building before torching it and removed this guys pair of pet snakes. They found them outside the building.

Anywho, that loss to the program is still being felt and I have heard rumors that the department might fold. Which could explain why the professer I dream about doing Phd. research with is STILL (after 3 years) not taking any new students. So yeah, while I do giggle and feel a little rush when I hear about millions of dollars of hummers getting burned up, I can't support their methods any more, especially when they don't do their homework.

[juggles]

I'm very worried about the government playing fast and loose with the term "terrorist." Label someone a terrorist and you can circumvent the rules that should protect the accused. Before long, some hippie sitting in a tree will be called and "Enemy Combatant" and he'll end up being tortured in Syria via extraordinary rendition.

That said, if you engage in acts of civil disobedience, regardless of how noble the cause, be prepared to suffer the consequences. I'm very weary of people who think that because they're on the side of peace or the trees or all that's right, they shouldn't go to jail when they knowingly and deliberately break the law.

My personal feeling about environmental extremists is that they tend to do more harm than good by making themselves and their cause look foolish and irrational. I once heard Robert Kennedy Jr. answer a question on this topic and he saw civil disobedience as an attempt to subvert the system. He argued that since the American system allows for dissent and offers redress through the courts, subverting it was counter productive. I tend to agree.

[Dirk]

I think the issue is, what is the definition of terrorism. Yosh seems to like a definition that including murdering people. But the actual definition is more along the lines of trying to force people to change their ways be threats and making them fear what will happen if they don't. Killing is certainly one way to do this (and probably the best), but I think blowing things and setting things on fire up is equally as good. The whole way the ELF and ALF work is to try and make people afraid to do things they don't agree with. If you sell hummers, they may come and torch your car lot, causing you to lose lots of money (and possibly more). If you experiment on animals, they will free them all and torch your building, causing you to lose all the research you have been working for years on. (And let's not forget the inherent fear of "what if I was there when it happened".)

So yes, ecoterrorists are terrorists. They are trying to enact change by making people afraid to do something.

[markalot]

Does that say something about living in fear? I might fear my neighbor, but I don't think he's going to burn my house down.

[Studebaker289]

Would you rather they sign petitions or walk around with a sign in their hand chanting? It should be pretty clear at this point that those kinds of things are not getting the job done..

Maybe that's because enough people don't think the problem is as bad as some folks make it out to be?



The suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the fight to end apartheid, and the abolitionist movement ALL had illegal elements to them. No doubt many people called these "childish" and "extreme" (not sure if they used the T word back then), but looking back at them now we consider the people who did them heroes.

True... but when King and others sat in white only dinners they didn't danger other peoples live .. just their own
I feel that none of these examples hold with me.... maybe a better one would have been the American Revolution but even at that it really didn't get violent untill the Boston Massacre

[Studebaker289]

Everyone's a terrorist.
So the war on terror is the war on everyone.

I have long thought this.


I like this

[the happy prole]

How bad does it have to get before you'll support people breaking the law to defend the environment? When all the old growth is gone? When genetically modified plants have displaced or tampered with every field and bioregion in the world? When climate change reaches the point of "there's nothing we can do, we're all fucked"?

When they're effective? You say that conventional methods aren't working, but has ELF ever done anything useful? The three from Richmond were idiots.

I happen to know one of the guys whose SUV tires got slashed. His SUV is like 20 years old and it's not gas guzzling. He rides a bike to work, he uses his SUV to haul bottles and cans from parks to recycling centers. You know why he was pissed? Because his tire is sitting in a landfill somewhere, and it had a lot of use left. The glass etching cream they used is also extremely toxic.

The SUV owners are still driving their SUV's. The mall they were protesting still got built. They actually created more pollution and accomplished nothing. 80% of Richmond didn't care. Probably 10% got turned against evironmentalism. And the other 10% are laughing at these incompetent boobs who got caught failing to set a crane on fire. One of them wasn't there because he was grounded by his parents and safely ensconced in his affluent Henrico home (the exact kind of community these kids were "protesting").

Most of them are like that. They're lazy people and stupid people who do these things for a petty sense of self-satisfaction rather than for the environment. As a result, most of their actions are ill-planned and completely ineffective.

You know what impresses me? When someone cares enough about the environment that they study it in college so they can understand it, then pile on some grad school, then get a job trying to clean up the environment through science or policy.

Those kids could have spent their time volunteering for Chesepeake Bay Foundation, or studying Marine Biology and made a bigger difference. Only that would have been, y'know, work.

[PeterABnny]

Would you rather they sign petitions or walk around with a sign in their hand chanting? It should be pretty clear at this point that those kinds of things are not getting the job done.

The suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the fight to end apartheid, and the abolitionist movement ALL had illegal elements to them. No doubt many people called these "childish" and "extreme" (not sure if they used the T word back then), but looking back at them now we consider the people who did them heroes.


True, the abolitionist movement did have illegal elements to it. It also had violent and bloodied elements to it. But none of those elements caused it to be eradicated in this country. Remember the Civil War (which started because of secession, NOT slavery) or the Emancipation Proclamation (which Lincoln wrote because he didn't believe in slavery, NOT because the abolitionists pressured him to do it)? THOSE are untimately what ended slavery, not the abolitionist movement.

Tell me, Yosh - has ANYTHING, EVER come about because of all that burning and trashing? What has happened - besides members being arrested and generally turning the general public off on the cause? Has anyone in ALF or ELF EVER stopped to realize there are consequenses to their actions? Or were they too engaged in the orgasm of destruction to care?

Here's what's really going on: ALF or ELF decides one night to torch XYZ Lab, Inc. because they thought something was going on there they didn't like. So they do. They sneak in, set free whatever animals they find there (pet or no), trash the lab, and burn the whole shebang to the ground. They eventually get caught, charged with arson and terrorism, and go to jail. The story makes the news and everybody says what a violent bunch of nutjob assholes ALF and ELF is, and all the while insurance claims are made, the instruments and/or animals are replaced, the building is rebuilt, and everything is just as it was before. The research goes on, ALF/ELF members are in jail, and the public is a little more anti-ALF/ELF than they were before. Only now, years of valuable research the lab was working on for the betterment of mankind - whether it be the end of the common cold or a solution to environmental pollution - is gone, the costs of replacing the lab and its equipment are passed along to the consumer in the way of higher insurance premiums, end-product price, security and so on, and in general people think things are worse than they were before. Hey, way to go there, sports! Good job! What a way to accomplish something!

Honestly, if these asshats put as much effort into emailing/writing elected officials and educating the public through works of charity and goodwill, they might actually be able to accomplish something rather than turn people against them. But then, that isn't nearly as much fun as destroying property, is it? Hate to break it to ya, Yosh, but whether we're talking about Mohammed cartoons or burning Hummers, diplomacy at the muzzle of a gun (or, I suppose torch, with these people), is not good diplomacy. In the end, it's still the same mindless, destructive bullshit no matter how noble your cause supposedly is.

[markalot]

When they're effective? You say that conventional methods aren't working, but has ELF ever done anything useful? The three from Richmond were idiots.

I happen to know one of the guys whose SUV tires got slashed. His SUV is like 20 years old and it's not gas guzzling. He rides a bike to work, he uses his SUV to haul bottles and cans from parks to recycling centers. You know why he was pissed? Because his tire is sitting in a landfill somewhere, and it had a lot of use left. The glass etching cream they used is also extremely toxic.

The SUV owners are still driving their SUV's. The mall they were protesting still got built. They actually created more pollution and accomplished nothing. 80% of Richmond didn't care. Probably 10% got turned against evironmentalism. And the other 10% are laughing at these incompetent boobs who got caught failing to set a crane on fire. One of them wasn't there because he was grounded by his parents and safely ensconced in his affluent Henrico home (the exact kind of community these kids were "protesting").

Most of them are like that. They're lazy people and stupid people who do these things for a petty sense of self-satisfaction rather than for the environment. As a result, most of their actions are ill-planned and completely ineffective.

You know what impresses me? When someone cares enough about the environment that they study it in college so they can understand it, then pile on some grad school, then get a job trying to clean up the environment through science or policy.

Those kids could have spent their time volunteering for Chesepeake Bay Foundation, or studying Marine Biology and made a bigger difference. Only that would have been, y'know, work.


/post worship

Interesting set of accidently related threads.

Any time people are viewed as a group the results are almost always wrong.

Muslims
SUV owners
old people having babies
people in general

There are so many things that make a person, that go into a decision, that end with some kind of result. It's easy to take a single result and lump all the people together and point and say they are wrong.

I should know, I do it all the time, but at least I admit to it.

[yoshomon]

It's called the law of unintended consequences. Are you telling me that not a single firefighter or police officer has been injured, maimed or killed in fighting any of the destruction they've wrought? If a firefighter falls through the roof of a burning building fighting an ELF fire, is it excused b/c they didn't "intend" to hurt anyone?

Nope. In 10+ years of activity, not one firefighter or cop has been injured by an ELF action.

[yoshomon]

Tell me, Yosh - has ANYTHING, EVER come about because of all that burning and trashing? What has happened - besides members being arrested and generally turning the general public off on the cause? Has anyone in ALF or ELF EVER stopped to realize there are consequenses to their actions? Or were they too engaged in the orgasm of destruction to care?

A friend of mine is in prison right now for releasing thousands of mink from 6 fur farms in the midwest. Besides the obvious result or saving lots of animals from being anally electrocuted and turned into ugly coats for rich women, his actions forced 2 of these farms to close permanently.

In England, fur is no longer sold in department stores because of ALF actions. In the US, almost all of the undercover footage we have of animal research facilities was taken by the ALF and other underground activists. In 2004 alone, the ALF saved over 14,000 animals (9,000+ being mink) around the world, and has pushed animal testing labs like Huntingdon Life Sciences to the verge of bankruptcy. The ELF has less direct victories (and is more than a decade younger).

I think that groups like the ELF have taken debates about things like SUVs and urban sprawl and pushed them in more radical directions and have tried to give teeth to an environmental 'movement' that has been losing ground for decades and allowing some of the most beautiful eco-systems in the world to perish at the hands of corporations. I find a lot of ELF actions to be poorly thought out... but at least these people are breaking out of the cycle of "lesser of two evils" that perpetuates this whole mess we're in.

[Shlep]

Would you rather they sign petitions or walk around with a sign in their hand chanting? It should be pretty clear at this point that those kinds of things are not getting the job done.

In other words: if I or anyone else is disatisfied with the amount or pace of change regarding things we care about, that gives us carte blanche to go around destroying property and possibly threatening lives?

Yosh, what sort of demented fantasy world does someone have to live in to think that running around setting stuff on fire is an effective method of brining about meaningful change? Set a condo development on fire, and you create an environmentally damaging condition which is going to get quelled, whereupon the frickin' condos still get built. And I'm pretty sure most of the SUV-driving yuppie scum (or guys who own dealerships that sell the SUVs to the yuppie scum) are insured; set a Hummer on fire, and again you create an envrionmentally-damaging situation that results in junk that has to be disposed of while the yuppie scum or the car dealer gets a brand spanking new SUV with which to continue exacerbating the alleged global environmental crisis.

The suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the fight to end apartheid, and the abolitionist movement ALL had illegal elements to them. No doubt many people called these "childish" and "extreme" (not sure if they used the T word back then), but looking back at them now we consider the people who did them heroes.

Leaving aside the absurd comparison between people struggling for the basic dignity of their fellow human beings and people destroying property in the name of acheiving vague and abstract ends in addressing a crisis which may or may not even exist: the people are are generally regarded as heroes in the aforementioned movements are the ones who showed admirable dignity and remarkable restraint in the pursuit of their causes. The ELF/ALF types you so ardently defend in these periodic threads do the opposite. I don't know about anyone else, but I have two distinct feelings regarding the March on Washington and the Watts riots.

Moreover, it was the people fighting for civil rights who were having their property set alight by their opponents, not the other way around.

As for calling them "terrorists": I think that's too grandiose a term. People in this country throw the term "terrorist" around too easily, as they do "hero" or "tragedy." I think "crimminal" is a good textbook definition. I have a variety of other appelations of my own.

[despondent]

Change is not a hammer. It is a seed that must be planted, watered, and nurtured.

[BigSugar]

call me crazy, but i kinda dug all that global warming the last month or so here in Cincy.....it's all this cold and snow that really pisses me off!!! :)

defend the earth. i'm cool with that. but setting shit on FIRE and causing POLLUTION seems a bit fracking stupid and anti-thetical.

save the animals. i'm cool with that. But "liberating" 9000 minks into a habitat which they aren't naturally a part of seems like a shortsighted plan. How many mink died on the roadways and as a result of not being able to feed or defend themselves in the wild. probably a good 50%. not well thought out in my view. and liberating monkeys into the wilds of New York City or Chicago seems kinda dumb. protesting and other forms of non-violent, non-destructive protestation has succeeded wildly in the cosmetic industry and in the pharmaceutical industry. how can anyone say that this type of non-violent work has gone for naught??!

everything that is destroyed or liberated is insured and replacable. by destroying housing complexes, you're not insuring that no more trees are harmed, you're insuring that in order to rebuild those homes/condo's that double the amount of trees and habitat will be destroyed.

and please Yosh......QUIT AVOIDING MY QUESTION!!!! answer it. it's a valid hypothetical. you just don't want to answer it b/c you know that your answer will make you look hypocritical. but it's ok, b/c i already think you're hypocritical, so no worries mate. :) say it. i just want to hear those sweet words......"Sug, you're right." say them. you know you want to dammit!

[the happy prole]

I think that groups like the ELF have taken debates about things like SUVs and urban sprawl and pushed them in more radical directions and have tried to give teeth to an environmental 'movement' that has been losing ground for decades and allowing some of the most beautiful eco-systems in the world to perish at the hands of corporations. I find a lot of ELF actions to be poorly thought out... but at least these people are breaking out of the cycle of "lesser of two evils" that perpetuates this whole mess we're in.

I still disagree with ALF's methods, but I have some some empathy and understanding for what ALF does. If you free a bunch of lab animals, at least you saved that bunch of animals. And in the PR scheme of things you send the message that you are trying to spare lives-- animal lives anyway. And then you can take pictures of the animals so people can see what's happening.

Blowing up SUVs clandestinely and on a small scale does nothing. You're just destroying crap pointlessly. Maybe if they left a message like "For every x PPM of PCB in the James River, three striped bass die. We will therefore destroy three SUV's per day until the PCB levels are reduced X%" it might accomplish something on the awareness level. But "SUV's suck, ELF kicks ass!" doesn't do anything.

And you know why they don't leave good messages? Because mostly they don't know shit about the environment. They've all read Edward Abbey but they don't read scientific literature. They don't understand the problem, they don't have a solution, so they're just blowing stuff up.

[Studebaker289]

and please Yosh......QUIT AVOIDING MY QUESTION!!!! answer it. it's a valid hypothetical. you just don't want to answer it b/c you know that your answer will make you look hypocritical. but it's ok, b/c i already think you're hypocritical, so no worries mate. :) say it. i just want to hear those sweet words......"Sug, you're right." say them. you know you want to dammit!

If I had to say "ohh bigsugar you're right"
I'd feel dirty... :D

I like feeling dirty ;)

[yoshomon]

and please Yosh......QUIT AVOIDING MY QUESTION!!!! answer it. it's a valid hypothetical. you just don't want to answer it b/c you know that your answer will make you look hypocritical. but it's ok, b/c i already think you're hypocritical, so no worries mate. :) say it. i just want to hear those sweet words......"Sug, you're right." say them. you know you want to dammit!

I think that discharging weapons randomly into crowds (and trying not to hit anyone?) or flying planes into empty buildings (how the fuck would you know it's empty if you're in a plane?) are ridiculously stupid and are no way comparable to what the ELF does. Nobody does either of those things without intending to kill people.

So sure, firing weapons into crowds and flying planes into buildings sounds like terrorism to me. Destroying genetically modified crops or rescuing lab animals does not.

[yoshomon]

And you know why they don't leave good messages? Because mostly they don't know shit about the environment. They've all read Edward Abbey but they don't read scientific literature. They don't understand the problem, they don't have a solution, so they're just blowing stuff up.

I don't think that's necessarily true. While convicted ELF folks like John Wade or Chris McIntosh are definitely not academic and acted based on emotion (not that emotion is a bad thing!), others like Jeff Luers clearly have a firm grasp on the environmental crisis.

Jeff did not act on behalf of the ELF, but his action fits the mold. In interviews and such he's been clear that his actions were acts of desperation after years of doing legal environmental work and more civil disobedience stuff like tree-sitting and not seeing any progress. He recently wrote an articulate, well-researched article about climate change and has given addresses to environmental conferences from prison.

Right now he's in the middle of a 22+ year sentence for the crime of setting 3 cars on fire, and the government considers him a terrorist. I think that's an absurd sentence and label to put on him. More info: www.freefreenow.org

[Dirk]

In England, fur is no longer sold in department stores because of ALF actions. In the US, almost all of the undercover footage we have of animal research facilities was taken by the ALF and other underground activists. In 2004 alone, the ALF saved over 14,000 animals (9,000+ being mink) around the world, and has pushed animal testing labs like Huntingdon Life Sciences to the verge of bankruptcy. The ELF has less direct victories (and is more than a decade younger).
You leave out how the ALF got the stores to stop carrying fur. They set fires in stores, which caused millions in damages. They terrorized the stores into not carrying fur because they didn't want a fire set in their store. And in doing so, caused many people to lose their job and prices to go higher (the money for damages had to come from somewhere). So they lessened the fur trade and lessened many peoples lives (many of whom just happened to work in the department stores and had nothing to do with the fur trade.)

So the ALF has pushed labs to the verge of bankruptcy. And how many people were put out of jobs? And let us not forget what a lot of these labs do. they test drugs that save human lives. So by putting these labs out of business, the ALF have made it harder for drugs to be made that help humans.

The problem with groups like the ALF is that they place animals above humans, because they only focus on their ends and never look at all the consequences. Sure, I don't like furs and would like to see them go away. But I am not willing to put someone out of work and hurt that person to do it. I think there is a lot of testing on animals that doesn't need to be done. But I realize there is a lot that does need to be done and I am unwilling to sacrifice all of the good that comes from that by buring down a lab. These groups have a lot of good causes, but they only look at the animals they save and not the people they hurt. They may save 100 lab rats but they also may set back cancer research a month because of it. I would gladly give up 100 lab rats (or 1000 or more) to have a cure for cancer.

[SheepNutz]

Burning all those SUVs does wonders for the environment! It doesn't release lots of toxic fumes and liquids or anything!

[Shlep]

So the ALF has pushed labs to the verge of bankruptcy. And how many people were put out of jobs? And let us not forget what a lot of these labs do. they test drugs that save human lives. So by putting these labs out of business, the ALF have made it harder for drugs to be made that help humans.

Penn and Teller did a scathing piece on PETA, most notably their more radical element. They featured a snippet of one of their higher-ranking officers talking about how any sort of animal testing was unacceptable, even if it did save lives. P & T then pointed out how she was currently alive thanks to diabetes treatments which only exist thanks to animal testing.

[BigSugar]

I think that discharging weapons randomly into crowds (and trying not to hit anyone?) or flying planes into empty buildings (how the fuck would you know it's empty if you're in a plane?) are ridiculously stupid and are no way comparable to what the ELF does. Nobody does either of those things without intending to kill people.

So sure, firing weapons into crowds and flying planes into buildings sounds like terrorism to me. Destroying genetically modified crops or rescuing lab animals does not.

LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. CHAOS THEORY.

burning labs where people work, burning vehicles (which are loaded with gas and can explode like bombs), burning homes in neighborhoods where people live.....i guess these aren't terrorist acts b/c as far as you know, nobody has died yet.

my question was this.....WHAT IF Atta was 100% sure the towers were uninhabited and wouldn't hurt anyone by destroying them? WHAT IF McVeigh timed his blast to ensure that not a single person got hurt, only the building. would they still not be considered terrorist acts!?? is it the "cause" that turns them into "liberators" or "freedom fighters"? does it make a difference that ALF only uses cans of gasoline and Atta used a plane full of fuel? you keep avoiding. and i'll keep pushing until you answer. the hypocrisy clock is ticking.......tick, tick, tick.

[Dumb Hick]

I terrerize my neigbers with my loud, greasy, gasseous farts.

[Dumb Hick]

Your "schtick" still just isn't very funny. :confused:

but they do always automatically follow with you quotin' me soon after, so it is all very fun fer me.

keep it up, good sir.

[DaHood]

I terrerize my neigbers with my loud, greasy, gasseous farts.
Your "schtick" still just isn't very funny. :confused:
But this thread does indeed give me gas.

[the happy prole]

WHAT IF Atta was 100% sure the towers were uninhabited and wouldn't hurt anyone by destroying them? WHAT IF McVeigh timed his blast to ensure that not a single person got hurt, only the building. would they still not be considered terrorist acts!??

What's your point? I have no problem saying that IF Atta and McVeigh made sure no one got hurt as a result of their activity, then I would not consider them nearly as dangerous.

Why should someone who destroys a building AFTER making sure that it's empty and no one will get hurt get the same sentence as someone who tries to make sure the building is a full as possible so they can kill as many people as possible? You can call them both "terrorist" acts if you want, but to punish them the same is ridiculous.

[yoshomon]

does it make a difference that ALF only uses cans of gasoline and Atta used a plane full of fuel? you keep avoiding. and i'll keep pushing until you answer. the hypocrisy clock is ticking.......tick, tick, tick.

Yes, it does make a difference. There is a difference between a small incidenary device and a commerical jetliner filled with fuel (and people). There is also a difference between someone who seeks to kill hundreds of people and someone who wants to cut into the profits of and/or shut down a business. While you might disagree with the latter, it's absurd to put them in the same category as the former.

If you think burning down an empty building or busting in some windows is the same as killing hundreds of people, I think you need help.

[Shlep]

Well then, I guess ALF and ELF better hope that, say, a homeless person seeking refuge in unoccupied and partially-constructed townhouses doesn't get burnt to death.

Or that the fires don't get out of control and spread to occupied houses.

Or that no fireman get mained or killed fighting one of their fires. Not that I doubt they'd care, since Earth First! has already been directly responsible for maiming loggers with their tree-spiking campaigns (loggers trying to make a living and feed their families providing a valuable resource people need to live = tools of the man).

[the happy prole]

I don't have a problem with that shlep.

If someone commits murder, prosecute them as murderers. Whether it's SHAC, ELF, ALF, KKK, or some random druggie.

If someone commits arson and property damage, then prosecute them the same as anyone else who commits arson and property damage. Whether it's SHAC, ELF, ALF, KKK or some random druggie.

And if you apply that standard, you'd have a hard time justifying why Jeffrey Luer got 22.5 years in jail, or why ALF and ELF are supposedly the most dangereous domestic terrorist groups in the US.

[yoshomon]

Not that I doubt they'd care, since Earth First! has already been directly responsible for maiming loggers with their tree-spiking campaigns

This isn't true. In the one incident of injury related to a tree spiking, the court found that the logging company was responsible for the injury because it did not take proper precautions.

The ALF has existed for nearly 3 decades and hasn't killed or injured anyone during any of its thousands of actions around the world. Meanwhile, hunters, logging corporations, and live animal transport companies have KILLED several animal rights protestors and environmentalists.

William Sweet, British anti-bloodsports activist shot dead (January 1976) during an altercation with a man shooting birds.

Bartolomeu Morais da Silva (aka "Brasilia") a Brazilian farmer who led the struggle against illegal logging, land fraud and destructive large-scale infrastructure projects was found murdered from shot gun wounds and his legs broken in July 2002.

Mike Hill, British hunt saboteur deliberately run over by a hunter in February 1991.

Tom Worby, British hunt saboteur deliberately run over by a hunter in April 1993.

Geetaban Rachiya, Indian vegetarian activist who was hacked to death by two butchers in the summer of 1993 following a successful campaign against the sale of mutton.

Jill Phipps, British activist deliberately run over whilst trying to stop live animal exports in February 1995.

David "Gypsy" Chain, American eco-activist crushed to death in September 1998 when a tree was felled on top of him by an irate logger in California's Headwoods Forest.

Who are the violent ones?

[Buzzstein]

If someone commits murder, prosecute them as murderers. Whether it's SHAC, ELF, ALF, KKK, or some random druggie.

If someone commits arson and property damage, then prosecute them the same as anyone else who commits arson and property damage. Whether it's SHAC, ELF, ALF, KKK or some random druggie.

And if you apply that standard, you'd have a hard time justifying why Jeffrey Luer got 22.5 years in jail, or why ALF and ELF are supposedly the most dangereous domestic terrorist groups in the US.

And that's basically where I'm at on the whole “ecoterrorism” thing. I think these people are deemed terrorists so that their rights can be taken away. It gives the authorities an excuse to unfairly prosecute and imprison these people beyond reason. I think intent matters. I don't think they really intend to terrorize and kill people. They just want to destroy property. Therefore they are not terrorists. They are certainly arsonists though. And I don't like arsonists. Sooner or later somebody's going to die in one of these fires. Then it won't be so much of a stretch to label these people “terrorists.

If anyone ever ends up destroying a lab that is making major advances in curing Muscular Dystrophy I will wish them death.

[Candyass]

I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the term "terrorist", but weren't the radicial environmentalist and animal rights groups referred to as terrorists, ecoterrorists, and what-not before 9-11? I recall that in a class on Earth First, this was the common term used. And back in the day, I think they embraced that term to a certain extent....(but seeing how I was a Western College major, I also think I smoked that part of my brain away...just throwing this out there)

[Shlep]

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm?oid=271

The following is from an interview with Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle in the April 1993 issue of Playboy:


When I asked Mike Roselle to tell me about his favorite action, or ecodefense, he didn't hesitate.

A band of desert saboteurs from Earth First! resolved in 1989 to put an end to the desert motorcycle race called the Barstow to Vegas, which ran through the East Mojave scenic area, a prospective national park and habitat of the desert tortoise, kangaroo rat and other creatures.


"The night before the race, we took a trailerload of railroad ties and four-by-eights down to the track," remembers Roselle, a former oil- field roughneck and one of the five men who cooked up the idea for Earth First! on a camping trip to Mexico's Sonora Desert in 1980. "See they had to go under Interstate Fifteen. There was this tunnel about six feet wide, eight feet high and one hundred fifty feet long that was made for water to go through. We built this cube to the size of the culvert, and at night we set it up in the middle of the tunnel."


I want you to picture this," snaps Rick Sieman, senior editor of Dirt Bike magazine and head of the Sahara Club, a race sponsor. "Here are top expert riders going a hundred and ten miles per hour down a sand wash at eleven o'clock, sun directly overhead, coalblack shadows, dust on their goggles, and they're going to dart through this shadow, assumedly, and go to the other side. If our people hadn't spotted that, they would have killed a half-dozen riders."

Vigilance and luck are the reasons why several people are not dead; this idiot deliberatly tried to hurt people.


In 1990, Earth First!er Lyn Georges Dessaux was convicted of assault after stabbing two men with a ski pole in a save-the-buffaloes protest. Earth First!ers have set fire to a livestock auction. They've also torched logging equipment.

Dave Foreman himself pled guilty in 1991 to conspiring to blow up electrical lines leading to an Arizona nuclear power plant (he wrote a check to pay for 50 grenades).

In the latter case, again I think that it's fortunate that this idiot didn't get his hands on 50 hand grenades.

It's nothing short of amazing that ELF, ALF, Earth First! and the like haven't killed people, given their penchant for sabotage and arson. Which is not to say they wouldn't mind-- the rhetoric of these groups frequently alludes to using violent action to acheive their ends, as they increasingly seem to feel that regular civic action is ineffective (or just for pussies not as dedicated as they are).

[the happy prole]

Who gives a shit, shlep?

They haven't killed anyone, so they shouldn't be receiving criminal penalties that are harsher than people who have.

[Shlep]

Who gives a shit, shlep?

I would imagine the people who have lost millions of dollars and possibly faced personal and financial ruin thanks to this dipwads give several shits. Not to mention the people who've narrowly avoided getting maimed or killed.

They haven't killed anyone, so they shouldn't be receiving criminal penalties that are harsher than people who have.

Did I say I approved of some of the lopsided sentences these guys have gotten? No, in fact I already stated quite plainly I thought that branding them "terrorists" was disingenuous.

So far, it seems the main argument in their favor seems to be that they lack the wit and cunning to actually harm the people they intend to do harm to.

[PeterABnny]

A friend of mine is in prison right now for releasing thousands of mink from 6 fur farms in the midwest. Besides the obvious result or saving lots of animals from being anally electrocuted and turned into ugly coats for rich women, his actions forced 2 of these farms to close permanently.

Oooooooookay, so instead of dying instantly by electrocution, the minks die slowly - agonizingly slowly, even - at the hands of predators, cars, or by having no defenses in an unfamiliar surrounding. Oh! Not to mention creating their own little ecological mess if enough were able to breed in any kind of numbers. Then, of course, the farmers themselves probably lost everything when they were bullied out of business. True they were probably in a non-sustaining industry anyway, but damn - take away a family's livelihood? Yeah - that was a good, well-thought out idea...


In England, fur is no longer sold in department stores because of ALF actions. In the US, almost all of the undercover footage we have of animal research facilities was taken by the ALF and other underground activists. In 2004 alone, the ALF saved over 14,000 animals (9,000+ being mink) around the world, and has pushed animal testing labs like Huntingdon Life Sciences to the verge of bankruptcy. The ELF has less direct victories (and is more than a decade younger).

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the decline in animal testing labs has more to do with the advance of computer technology and more accurate models and less about being forced out of existance? Or maybe that even the best computer models still can't substitute for live specimen trials in some cases? Or maybe ALF doesn't particularly care about research to find cures for MS, or Alzheimers, or any a number of other diseases - even when someone they love comes down with the disease? And what about the costs involved in replacing those animals and equipment? You thought the price of prescription drugs was high before... The drug companies aren't going to eat those costs. If ALF were so bloody concerned about animal testing, are there any who ever put themselves on the line, and have new drugs tested on themselves?

*crickets*

Yeah, I thought so...


I think that groups like the ELF have taken debates about things like SUVs and urban sprawl and pushed them in more radical directions and have tried to give teeth to an environmental 'movement' that has been losing ground for decades and allowing some of the most beautiful eco-systems in the world to perish at the hands of corporations. I find a lot of ELF actions to be poorly thought out... but at least these people are breaking out of the cycle of "lesser of two evils" that perpetuates this whole mess we're in.

Depends on what you consider the lesser evil, mate. And as I said before, no matter how much you rationalize or claim nobility, it's still forcing your beliefs on someone else by threat of violence. In the end you're no better than Al-Quida or any of a number of violent religious extremists.

[yoshomon]

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm?oid=271

That website is run as a front-group for the industries being protested. Not exactly an unbiased source.

If you want to know what Earth First! is all about, I recommend taking a trip to the towns in Appalachia where they've been busy (successfully) fighting mountain top removal. There are a lot of elements to the EF! movement that make me uncomfortable... the misanthropy and subtle racism of the founding members, for example... but the group has changed a lot over the years and has done some awesome campaigns.

I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the term "terrorist", but weren't the radicial environmentalist and animal rights groups referred to as terrorists, ecoterrorists, and what-not before 9-11?

Yes, a lot of the "animal enterprise terrorism" laws were passed in the 90's in response to the ALF's attacks on the fur industry. The prison sentences, however, have only started getting severe in the past few years.... starting with Jeff Luers being sentenced to 22+ years for destroying a couple cars.

By the way, your earlier point that "Dave Foreman and Edward Abbey were mysogynsts therefore sabotage sucks" was ridiculous. As if those two guys came up with sabotage! And even if they did, their views on women do not invalidate sabotage as a tactic. Judging by people who've been convicted for ELF and ALF actions, there are tons of women involved in the environmental and animal liberation underground. The idea that women aren't capable of being aggressive or destructive (and that things like arson are only done by men) is essentialist bullshit.

[yoshomon]

Or maybe ALF doesn't particularly care about research to find cures for MS, or Alzheimers, or any a number of other diseases - even when someone they love comes down with the disease? And what about the costs involved in replacing those animals and equipment? You thought the price of prescription drugs was high before... The drug companies aren't going to eat those costs. If ALF were so bloody concerned about animal testing, are there any who ever put themselves on the line, and have new drugs tested on themselves?

Animal testing is not an effective research tool and is not finding cures for those diseases. The pharmaceutical industry and animal testing labs push this line of "if you're against us, you want people to die of cancer!" when the reality is that most testing facilities are killing hundreds of animals testing the toxicity of pesticides, food colorings, artificial sweeteners, and household products. Labs like Huntingdon Life Sciences (http://www.insidehls.com) (who get attacked by the ALF more than any other company in the world) don't do cancer research... they're testing products.

In undercover investigations of Huntingdon, it was revealed that employees accidentally transplanted a frozen pig's heart into a babboon without thawing it out first.* During their xenotransplantation experiments, they breached the Good Laboratory Practices guildelines 520 times.* Their own records show that technicians were seen drunk, on drugs, and trying sell illegal drugs at work, but were never fired.* They have been exposed falsifying scientific data and breaking animal welfare laws numerous times and have been fined by the USDA and almost shut down by the UK government. And this is the largest contract testing lab in Europe! I think they're a good example of what this "life saving" industry is really all about.

Many other labs have been exposed doing similar acts of cruelty. Vivisection is sadism, not science, and by pumping money into it instead of using other methods of research, we're holding back finding cures for diseases. Let's start putting that money towards clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research instead of giving millions of dollars to mad scientists who cut open and poison live animals.

Depends on what you consider the lesser evil, mate. And as I said before, no matter how much you rationalize or claim nobility, it's still forcing your beliefs on someone else by threat of violence. In the end you're no better than Al-Quida or any of a number of violent religious extremists.

Again, if you think smashing windows, liberating animals, or burning down empty buildings is the same as killing thousands of people, you need help.

[miami2112]

my .02$

yes they are terrorists. my def: using violience to scare me into altering my behavior.

do they deserve the same sentences as those who have killed? no.

i live in a society where i can pursue various activities as i see fit. if i wish to hunt, i'll hunt. no alf or elf is going to change my mind; and nor is it their "right" to get in my face about it.

cosmetic testing, according to what i'd heard or read (dont remember the source), was being fazed out. cheaper to run computer models; and i agree.
stopping the use of animals for medicinal testing is WRONG; my aunt has cancer, would they rather have some rats alive and have my aunt died much earlier? this has always reeked of self righteous "i know better than you, so do what i say" controlling behavior.

i worked in a lab. animals were always treated humanely; their not cheap and maltreating your mice/rats (99% of medical use animals) will not give your valid results. everyone at northwestern treated their animals with the utmost of care. laws were changed, mistreating your animals costs you grant money. no one wants that.

huntingdton is "not the example this life saving industry is all about".

for the record, my biology classes have not done dissection of whole organisms (frog, pig, cats) since '92. i have done organs for anatomy classes.

smashing windows, "liberating" animals, and burning down empty buildings (that's arson, btw) is not killing thousands of people. however, those actions are all crimes and should be prosecuted as such. there is nothing noble in any of those behaviors.

*suggestion* how about alf and elf put their time and energy into helping the third world plant crops - so they dont have to eat animals?? habitat for humanity??? i rank human welfare above that of animals.

[Shlep]

So am I to understand that:

1) There is a point of diminishing returns where my passion for a cause overrides civil law and validates my decision to take the law into my own hands?

2) If I disagree with you enough, there's a similar point at which my decision to infringe upon your rights by destroying your property and threatening your livelihood and evcen your well-being likewise becomes acceptable?

3) If I make it my business to go about committing act of sabotage and arson, such activities are innocuous and not worth getting up worked up over because my doing so hasn't killed anyone (yet) or maimed anyone (as far as civil court in concerned)?

(In the latter case, regarding the judgement against the logging company, I've not been able to find the specific on this, but I am curious to know if there was a settlement involved).

Is this what I'm to understand?

[miami2112]

*suggestion* how about alf and elf put their time and energy into helping the third world plant crops - so they dont have to eat animals?? habitat for humanity??? i rank human welfare above that of animals.

work for the aspca? find homes for dogs and cats? volunteer at a soup kitchen?

and those who oppose gm food are clearly only out for their self interest - i dont see the starving indians and chinese protesting food that is more nutritiuos and easier to grow. only the rich, spoiled white kids are protesting - and protesting the feeding of people who are not as well off as they are. what do they do in their spare time?? protest the homeless shelters??

[the happy prole]

I think environmental extremists are idiots for the reasons people have already outlined, but if the situation were bad enough I could see myself answering "yes" to any or all three of those questions.

And considering I've never been in the armed forces, I bet you'd answer "yes" before I do.

[yoshomon]

work for the aspca? find homes for dogs and cats? volunteer at a soup kitchen?

and those who oppose gm food are clearly only out for their self interest - i dont see the starving indians and chinese protesting food that is more nutritiuos and easier to grow. only the rich, spoiled white kids are protesting - and protesting the feeding of people who are not as well off as they are. what do they do in their spare time?? protest the homeless shelters??

I don't know how you (or anyone) knows what most ELF and ALF activists do with most of their time. They may very well find homes for dogs and cats or volunteer at homeless shelters. They certainly don't spend most of their time doing illegal actions... as those usually can be accomplished in one evening.

Your point about genetically modified food is bunk because the most militant and aggressive anti-GMO protests and actions have come from small farmers and people in developing countries. GMOs are allowing large agri-business to take over farming around the world and are not doing anything to reduce hunger. The issue is not how much food is being grown - there's more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. It's an issue of distribution and sustainability. Further, nobody knows what the long-term effects of GMOs will be on the eco-system... and looking at the environmental track record of large agri-business and biochemical corporations, I doubt they are looking out for the eco-systems they're invading.

3) If I make it my business to go about committing act of sabotage and arson, such activities are innocuous and not worth getting up worked up over because my doing so hasn't killed anyone (yet) or maimed anyone (as far as civil court in concerned)?

Nobody has argued that you shouldn't get worked up about it. Nobody has called such activities innocuous. Arson is a big deal and not something to be taken lightly. Smaller actions like gluing locks, breaking windows, or spraypainting slogans are less of a big deal, though can be really effective in changing the policies of companies (look no further than the campaign against HLS).

I think that regardless of where one stands on the issue of tactics, we should all be getting worked up about what is happening to old growth forests, lab animals, and so on. The amount of destruction being caused by industrial logging (often done illegally!) is infinitely more pressing than the relatively minor acts of sabotage committed by the ELF and ALF over the past several decades. If we want to get really angry at someone, let's get angry at those in charge of Weyerhaeuser or Monsanto.

If you think writing letters to your senator or buying recycled paper is enough to defend the earth, then by all means do it! But I think playing by the rules is ridiculous when the whole game is rigged.

[yoshomon]

2) If I disagree with you enough, there's a similar point at which my decision to infringe upon your rights by destroying your property and threatening your livelihood and evcen your well-being likewise becomes acceptable?

Yes. If you are threatening my life and the lives of others (and that includes the lives of non-human animals), then I see nothing wrong with stopping you from posing that threat.

The only thing about what I just said that is contraversial is that I included non-human animals. I realy hope that everyone in here would do everything in their power to defend themselves and those around them.

I think that when the bioregion I live in is being destroyed, that constitutes a threat to me and those around me.

[Candyass]

By the way, your earlier point that "Dave Foreman and Edward Abbey were mysogynsts therefore sabotage sucks" was ridiculous. As if those two guys came up with sabotage! And even if they did, their views on women do not invalidate sabotage as a tactic. Judging by people who've been convicted for ELF and ALF actions, there are tons of women involved in the environmental and animal liberation underground. The idea that women aren't capable of being aggressive or destructive (and that things like arson are only done by men) is essentialist bullshit.

Not my point at all...let me elaborate. As a 20 yr old student, I really got into and behind deep ecology, radical environmentalism, and what not. Read as much stuff as I could get my hands on. The majority of what I read was pretty fucking sexist **and written by men. I don't care about how many women have been arrested for the cause, I was just saying that the sexist tone of the writings of Edward Abbey and David Foreman was a definite turn off. I didn't say they invented the fucking tactic, but you cannot deny that when you look at the history of radical environmentalism, these two men stand out on top...as fucking pigs.

Furthermore, I never said that women aren't capable of being aggressive or destructive...I know what I am capable of.

**edited to add

[shivui]

i'm not expressing too much of an opinion in here because by the looks of it, people are arguing different points, not unexpectedly. although, if you think an environmental problem like habitat destruction may exist, look around. the city of hamilton is a perfect example. it's essentially a city building toward a nothing future. there's nothing here to sustain, but people are flocking into newly developed neighborhoods (throw in new churches and super walmart!) at the expense of the woodland that's been there as long as i've been alive. with population growing exponentially, how does one not see this as a problem? the argument can be made that there's still plenty of trees around, but are they being replaced at a rate equal to the destruction? (i don't know the answer to that actually, so a little help) if not, when does the problem get important enough for people to care?

i don't support violence, but i honestly don't mind that people die a lot. as was mentioned in the aids cure thread, something equally harmful is going to step up once cancer or aids is cured. i think it's absolutely necessary. we, humans, are obviously pretty poor at moderating our numbers. the planet's gotta do what it can. unless of course, we kill it and move.

my hope is that we reach some population equilibrium soon.

[Shlep]

INobody has argued that you shouldn't get worked up about it. Nobody has called such activities innocuous. Arson is a big deal and not something to be taken lightly. Smaller actions like gluing locks, breaking windows, or spraypainting slogans are less of a big deal, though can be really effective in changing the policies of companies (look no further than the campaign against HLS).

So if I disagree with you, vehemently, say as I do with you on certain environmental issues, I should not be taken to task for swinging by your place of residence to smash the windows, glue your locks shut, and spraypaint stuff on your home or car since these tactics have supposedly brought about changes regarding things *you* find favorable and thus are correct by virtue of their alleged efficacy?

I think that regardless of where one stands on the issue of tactics, we should all be getting worked up about what is happening to old growth forests, lab animals, and so on. The amount of destruction being caused by industrial logging (often done illegally!) is infinitely more pressing than the relatively minor acts of sabotage committed by the ELF and ALF over the past several decades. If we want to get really angry at someone, let's get angry at those in charge of Weyerhaeuser or Monsanto.

As has already been pointed out: lab animals are not always abused carelessly as this effects the results of research done on them, if for no other reason.

Now if we're talking about using Fluffy and Thumper to test cosmetics: I agree this is a fairly pointless practice. If you're not sure if the mascara you sell isn't going to make somebody go blind, don't sell it. If it causes problems, people won't buy it. Ditto using animals for tests such as spraying EZ-Off oven cleaner in their eyes to test the harm that oven cleaner has if sprayed in the eyes; if you're actually fucking dumb enough to spray oven cleaner in your eyes, you deserve what you get.

YOu can believe whatever you want to, but I happen to be under the impression that good old-fashioned non-violent activism and public awareness efforts towards prodding companies to produce cruelty-free cosmetics has done a shitload more good than edgy young provocateurs donning balaclavas and terrorizinf Mary Kay.

As for the logging issue: are you somehow under the impression that there is zero stewardship of the land logging companies use as far as maintaining forests? Yosh, if there's one thing you and I both should have unwavering faith in, it's the self-interest if greedy, rapacious capitalists. You think logging companies (and the guys who sell wood for everything wood is used for, and paper companies) want to just go and raze every square in of forest and then, once all the trees are gone, shrug their shoulders and accept going broke?

If you think writing letters to your senator or buying recycled paper is enough to defend the earth, then by all means do it! But I think playing by the rules is ridiculous when the whole game is rigged.

You mean you think that working within the system by which actual change is effected is ridiculous, but creating pointless acts of vandalism that do absolutely fuck-all to stop developers from building rows of cookie-cutter tract housing, logging companies from cutting down trees, and car dealers from selling suburban mommies personal troop transports is the way to go?

Revisitng your earlier example briefly: were women granted voting rights via vandalism? Did arson get rid of "Whites Only" lunch counters? I'm fairly certain that THE SYSTEM was decidedly rigged against women in the 19th century and Southern blacks following emancipation, yet somehow (at least in the latter case) it was earnest young college kids doing mostly the sort of things you seem to regard as ineffectual, pie-eyed do-gooderism combined with dignified activism that ushered in change.

[Shlep]

Yes. If you are threatening my life and the lives of others (and that includes the lives of non-human animals), then I see nothing wrong with stopping you from posing that threat.

Threatening your life? :rolleyes:

What, did someone recently threaten you by brandishing a loaded mini-mall in your face?

[purple_octopus]

So if I disagree with you, vehemently, say as I do with you on certain environmental issues, I should not be taken to task for swinging by your place of residence to smash the windows, glue your locks shut, and spraypaint stuff on your home or car since these tactics have supposedly brought about changes regarding things *you* find favorable and thus are correct by virtue of their alleged efficacy?
I could be totally wrong, and far be it from me to speak for yosh. But I don't think he's saying that it's *okay*, just that it's not terrorism. The way I read his posts, he's not excusing them from vandalism and arson -- he just wants them to be punished for the crimes they actually committed, and nothing more. I can kinda see his point.

I've said in another thread that I can see both sides of this issue, though. Terrorism is the attempt to effect change through fear. I'm not sure of the motives of some of these environmental groups, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were indeed terrorists. I just don't think that burning up an SUV or an empty building necessarily makes someone a terrorist. Whether or not their actions produce the net result of a terrorist act (incite fear) despite their intentions -- and I suppose that's possible too -- may or may not make them terrorists. I'm hesitant to paint them all with one big brush.

[the happy prole]

Abbey wasn't just a sexist, he was a complete asshole. And it's relevant to ecotage because so many environmental extremists still hold him up as a hero.

His methods and his beliefs stem from the fact that he was a disgruntled asshole. His belief was less "this is our last resort" as much as "I don't give a fuck." And radical environmentalists get the idea that these subversive acts are both necessary and useful when in fact they aren't.

Other than being politically on opposite sides of the fence, Ted Nugent is pretty close to Abbey.

[Shlep]

I could be totally wrong, and far be it from me to speak for yosh. But I don't think he's saying that it's *okay*, just that it's not terrorism. The way I read his posts, he's not excusing them from vandalism and arson -- he just wants them to be punished for the crimes they actually committed, and nothing more. I can kinda see his point.

Well, as far as disproportionate sentencing for vandalism being wrong, we do not disagree.

As far as the rightness or wrongness of said acts: I fail to see how one can simultaneously believe that vandalism is wrong and also the only way to effect meaningful change in a society where everything is "rigged" against constructive activism.

[the happy prole]

As for the logging issue: are you somehow under the impression that there is zero stewardship of the land logging companies use as far as maintaining forests?

Are you somehow under the impression that a bunch of wood constitutes a forest? Because that's all lumber companies care about. It takes a long-ass time to grow a redwood tree once you cut it down. So once they clear out that old-growth they just plant acres and acres of fast growing wood. There's a lot of species that can't survive in monoculture tree farms, in addition to the ones you already knocked out.

We're not going to run out of wood, but we are going to run out of forest.

[markalot]

Are you somehow under the impression that a bunch of wood constitutes a forest? Because that's all lumber companies care about. It takes a long-ass time to grow a redwood tree once you cut it down. So once they clear out that old-growth they just plant acres and acres of fast growing wood. There's a lot of species that can't survive in monoculture tree farms, in addition to the ones you already knocked out.

We're not going to run out of wood, but we are going to run out of forest.

That over simplifies the issue. Loggers aren't out to destroy the redwood forests, but they own the land and can make a fortune because of the size of the trees. If someone wants to save the forest all they have to do is pay the logging companies the same amount of money they could make off the land.

There's not a lot of mono-culture planting being done these days because we've come to realize that a single insect or disease can wipe everything out. The main issue these days is the love of big old trees and land rights.

[the happy prole]

Timber companies have wised up a bit about planting monoculture farms in the US, but it's still prevalent in other countries. And more and more of our timber is coming from other countries, partially because we've cut so much of ours down.

As for the US, the majority of old growth timber in the Northwest comes from federal and state managed lands. Not only that, but we spend ridiculous amounts subsidizing timber cutting. It costs over $100 million a year in federal taxes in net losses. There are actually NGO's trying to buy some of that land at fair market value but the government won't sell. I know some conservative economists who worked at BLM or National Forest who quit their jobs because they were so pissed off about this.

Somehow the oil and timber companies have gotten the free-market taxpayers on their side and pitted them against environmentalists, when environmentalists and free market advocates should actually be on the same side.

[yoshomon]

If producing fear is all it takes to be a terrorist, then there are a shitload of terrorist living in this country.

[yoshomon]

As for the US, the majority of old growth timber in the Northwest comes from federal and state managed lands. Not only that, but we spend ridiculous amounts subsidizing timber cutting. It costs over $100 million a year in federal taxes in net losses. There are actually NGO's trying to buy some of that land at fair market value but the government won't sell. I know some conservative economists who worked at BLM or National Forest who quit their jobs because they were so pissed off about this.

Somehow the oil and timber companies have gotten the free-market taxpayers on their side and pitted them against environmentalists, when environmentalists and free market advocates should actually be on the same side.

Yeah, what's happening to forests in this country is the biggest scam because not only are logging companies destroying all the old-growth, WE'RE the ones paying for it!

[BigSugar]

Run Forests Run!!!