Uncritical use of word "eco-terrorist" on 60 minutes.

[castiron]

Please. These so-called terrorists are the moral compass of our nation. The phrase "eco-terrorist" was a neo-conservative linguistic plant back in the day, like "pro-abortion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorist

[Danger Duck]

1. The moral compass?

People that vandalize SUV's and break into labs and release animals are common crooks. If you want to implement change and garner support for your cause, there are better ways to do it.

[castiron]

3. I respectfully disagree.

Although I do agree there are other methods, I do not agree that there are more effective methods.

[Danger Duck]

13. Surely you jest....

when environmentalists commit a crime, it lessens support for their cause, and sets an important movement back. I can't argue this point, it seems self explanatory. Whether your'e comfortable wit hthe lable terrorist or not seems more relevant. I'll conceed that they are just criminals, not terrorists, at this point. But when I see people breaking into labs and destroying private property, it just angers me. In this culture of corruption, we should know that taking the law into our own hands, or ignoring it, does nothing except cheapen the cause.

On the horizon, TBS is broadcasting a massive special regarding global warming. Many celebrities are participating, and it will raise awareness and concern. Smashing hummers only sickens people and makes them regard environmentalists as a radical fringe.

[Egalitariat]

41. Effective? What are their accomplishments?***

nm

[Bill McBlueState]

5. exactly - common crooks

Few people would argue in defense of vandalizing SUVs and breaking into labs. The question is whether these activities merit the label "terrorism." What the neocons want to do is to make vandalizing an SUV and flying a plane into a building morally equivalent and equally newsworthy, which they certainly aren't.

[0rganism]

12. Not a moral compass, but hardly terrorists either

The day a bunch of Greenpeace activists hijack a whaling ship with kalashnikovs, or the ELF guys firebomb a vivisection lab during working hours, you can start talking about "eco-terrorists".

[ikojo]

14. As Earth First! used to say

Direct Action gets the goods.

[400Years]

15. Yep, direct actions get the goods

while sitting in a circle singing kumbaya does absolutely nothing.

[ikojo]

52. As long as the comfortable are not made

uncomfortable nothing will change. That's why I don't get all excited about attending large demonstrations. Most demonstrations take place in an empty downtown area and here lately they have been ignored by the media. The reason they are ignored is because the media knows people will be polite and not do anything to really challenge the status quo.

Asking the ruling class nicely gets the working class NOTHING!

[wakeme2008]

2. The guy calling for the KILLING OF PEOPLE ... is a Terrorist

IMHO.

[Union Thug]

9. This is where the dissonance begins for me...

Bush and his boys are using the fear of death and destruction to bring about political change in a country half a world a way. How is that NOT terrorism?

[Squatch]

17. So, now victims or potential victims can assume that

these eco-terrorists are bent on causing a person bodily harm, which will justify the use of deadly force in defense of life and property.

(What got me was the guy who said that killing was kosher is a doctor!...saying something to the effect of: "Well I won't kill anybody because I'm an MD...I would leave that up to others."

[Skidmore]

24. Yes, and all of them are.

Those who release the animals from labs are because some of those animals may be carriers of diseases. Frankly, any act destruction runs the risk of harming innocent bystanders. That guy went on and on about how much he cased places out before engaging in those acts. Well, there's always the one time you miscalculate. Regardless, these are criminal acts which don't do a thing to bring the public any closer to understanding the causes these people support.


Two wrongs don't make a right.

[The Stranger]

57. But no one was "calling for the KILLING OF PEOPLE" -- Imbecile Ed Bradley

was trying to bait him into it, but really couldn't seem to do it.

Meanwhile, all of the other ELF members on the show pointed out that THEY CANNOT BE TERRORIST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. In fact, they ACTUALLY MAKE IT A POINT TO KILL NO LIVING THING. (repeating) NO LIVING THING.

But mindless, brainless, idiot whoring Ed Bradley whored away his journalism reputation to try to make it seem that they are "terrorists."

Meanwhile, someone is planning to blow up an abortion clinic for Jesus somewhere and INTENTIONALLY KLLL THE DOCTORS THERE. But 60 Minutes has thrown the wool over the eyes of the sheep with a sleight of hand for the Neocons.

[tx_dem41]

4. I would have to know the actions of the people being addressed..

before I passed judgement. If they are spiking trees, vandalizing equipment, SUVs, etc...the term is apt.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. but is it really terrorism?

I think it cheapens the word terrorism if it's applied equally to petty vandalism and suicide bombing. One can condemn these activities without calling them terrorism.

[tx_dem41]

7. Is the action meant to terrorize?

In the case of the SUV vandalism, its clear that it is.

[Union Thug]

8. Maybe... On the other hand, much of the tactics utilized

by these folks are meant to force change by making it economically unfeasible to continue. Destroying a dozer in the middle of the night is not going to invoke a feeling of terror in anyone. It's an economic move.

[The Stranger]

58. Actually, a movement dedicated to KILLING NO LIVING THING

cannot "terrorize." Unless you are "terrorized" (terrified?) of losing your car, which cannot fit the definition.

[northzax]

20. so if I only bomb abortion clinics

when they are closed, it's not terrorism?

[Bill McBlueState]

33. i don't know

Do you want to adopt the right wing framing of "eco-terrorists" as a serious threat, or don't you?

[northzax]

34. that's my question

is the use of violence as a method of intimidation with political ends terrorism or isn't it? If it's terrorism for people who you don't sympathize with, then it's terrorism for the people you do.

Other equally valid analogies:

the KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn: terrorism, or not?
the bombing of the 16th Street Church in Birmingham? It was accidental that there were four little girls there at the time, it wasn't intended to kill anyone, so terrorism or not?

do you have to kill someone for it to be terrorism? the IRA was notorious, in the 80's, for calling in bomb threats before the explosion, the bombs destroyed property, but, given the advance warning, not as many people as they might have. Is it terrorism if you don't target people?

ETA was also known for often calling in threats, allowing the Spanish government to evacuate buildings before bombs went off, terror, or not?

My personal definition of terrorism is: the organized use of violence, by a non-state actor, to further political aims. ELF meets that definition. So yes, 'eco-terrorism' counts. Oh, and by the way, I have been arrested on a peaceful protest with Greenpeace, if that helps my bona fides.

edited for spelling

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. To be honest -- That is correct

If the anti-abortionists did not justify the killing of "innocents" in order to stop the killing of "innocents", Americans (including radical environmentalists) would probably be far more equanimical about the idea of anti-Abortionists burning unoccupied Abortion clinics. It would be in line with the Berrigans destroying MX missiles, but for opposite political reasons. That is the way politics works thruout history.

In New Orleans, if people had shot at the Gretna sherriffs guarding the bridge, I am quite sure people from across the political spectrum, including most folks on DU, would be horrified saying violence, immoral or not, is never justified. When the roles (or merely races) are reversed, you get silence.

This would not have been true at the time of the Founding Fathers. The shooters would have been folk heroes. Since then, America has become a sheltered place that thinks (right, left, and center) it can wash its hands of abusive, disorderly and immoral behavior committed by others -- neighbors, allies or opponents -- and will condone any amount of violence to do so, so long as it is in the hands of the State alone (or the State's favored political caste -- typically the private-sector white upper middle class.)

Check out "Gangs of New York" an excellent commentary on the clash between traditional views on violence in a democratic country and modern views on violence in a democratic country.

[northzax]

47. certainly, violence is less acceptable now than in the past

dueling, for instance, is not longer accepted as a way of resolving an insult to someone's honor. But is that a bad thing? Do you want to return to a world in which gang violence is an accepted method of airing grievances?

just out of curiosity, how much care must someone take to avoid bloodshed before vnadalism turns to terrorism?

and another question. If someone, say Osama bin Laden, arranged for the destruction of the Glen Canyon Dam, would that be terrorism? any deaths would be secondary, as long as the dam itself was evacuated.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. Glen Canyon Dam is destroying itself -- no violence required

Cathedral Canyon etc. are now in daylight for the first time in years.

Demonstrates that ultimately the "turn the other cheek" viewpoint is superior IN THE LONG RUN and I certainly believe this.

That said, to quote Morpheus, my beliefs do not require them to. I'm resigned to see most of the issues and things I personally care about (small stuff in the eyes of most people -- and I live in a very blue place) go down to defeat anyhow.

The only way this will not happen, unfortunately, is if the violence inherent in the system finds itself up against internal or external force. That force is ultimately violent or holds the potential of violence.

For you or me, this could mean "letting" the neocons invade Syria and bring about their destruction (because ultimately, even in America the fundamentals of politics shift only when dissatisfaction raises the possibility of violence, as in New Orleans and Houston),

Or it could mean "letting" folks like ELF spike trees, "letting" voters riot when they find out their votes were stolen or their son was drafted (in lieu of getting no media attention)

or "letting" the Mahdi Army engage in "just" (i.e. permissible) warfare against our soldiers without capturing and executing their leaders (as our Marines chose in deciding that the Mahdi Army were a quasi-legitimate guerrilla faction meeting force with force, as opposed to pirates or terrorists to be assassinated or hung.)

As for me, I believe that it is not moral to commit vandalism, but not because I equate vandalism with violence.

And yes, I think we are too protected as a society. Like Rome, we have sublimated our violent tendencies and directed them outwards. At home,
even metal jungle gyms (never mind rioting or duels) are impermissible.

We have swung too far in the other direction.

But I am a populist, not a progressive. (So to speak) I do not see how we have made any "progress" from Jackson to Bush, or from the Tea Tax and the Committees of Correspondence to AOL, TIA and resource draining superhighways.

Most of the progress we've made has come thanks to education and better sanitation, an ancient and highly variable aspiration through the ages.

I do not believe it is possible to condemn vandalism on ethical grounds alone, unless we decide (as liberals) the law is always to be followed.

The possibility of violence is on the head of the instigator, should it occur. Any morally conscious person who chooses to engage in direct action should go in knowing there is a danger they could cause more harm than good and accept that outcome is NOT justified by their beliefs. Most people (even some actual terrorists who survive their actions) come to understand this.

On Edit: Terrorism is not direct action, Terrorism is violence for its own sake. And saying "the state does it" is not an excuse.

Direct action is more a debate over "to what extent are my actions justified by extenuating circumstances, and to what extent is nominally unethical behavior -- politics by other means -- tolerable?"

Warfare, for example, could be considered direct action, especially when individuals rebel against their government.

If it's not worth going to jail for, it's not direct action... the easiest form of civil disobedience is when the law itself is clearly immoral, but is it permissible to commit - say - traffic violations in order to prevent a more unjust circumstance? Is it moral? If it is moral to do so, you could probably classify it as pure nonviolent civil disobedience. But things aren't always cut and dried...

[nosmokes]

11. spiking trees is terrorism?!! bollocks!! get a grip

raping an ancient forest with bulldozers and cranes is terrorism. and before you give me any propaganda about people in the mills being fucked up by the spikes i've never known of a single tree, not one, that was ever spiked and not tagged as being spiked.

[MalachiConstant]

10. it's a rotten and criminal way to promote your cause,

i agree on that. but we're essentially playing a game of semantics. in that case it's worth pointing out that the word terrorism indicates an "indiscriminate use of violence" to promote politcal objectives. in this case, the crime is vandalism not violence, and the acts are targeted and discriminate. so terrorism would be a misnomer.

[Loonman]

16. A terrorist

Is someone who uses violence and/or fear of violence in order to frighten people into doing what it is they want be done or whatever they want stopped being done.

So do ALF/ELF fit the definition? Yes.

[MadHound]

18. The trouble is that ALF/ELF isn't using violence,

Nor the threat of violence. What they are using is property destruction, or the fear thereof. Terroristic violence is aimed at people, not objects.

Now then, that fine RWer Timothy McVeigh certainly should be classified as a terrorist. But our oh so "liberal" media refuses to examine multiple examples of RW terrorism in our country, which with just one incident killed more people than anything ALF/ELF ever did.

This is simply another piece of propaganda that demonizes the left. It is designed to take America to the point where nobody will be on the left, they will either be too scared to go left, out of fear of demonization and scapegoating, or they will be in jail as a "terrorist".

[Loonman]

19. McVeigh was a terrorist

Who said he wasn't? More than a couple of ALF/ELF spokespeople have gone on record(like the guy last night on 60 Mins) saying that collateral harm to humans in the midst of their "actions" is no cause for concern.

[MadHound]

22. Well, considering that this misadministration has labeled

Both ELF and ALF as terrorist groups, along with damn near throwing PETA in that classification also, yet has given a pass to such RW groups such as the CSA, various Neo Nazis groups, Christian Identiy groups, etc. etc., I think that Bushco is giving a pass on RW terrorists. And thus we see the lapdog media barking at groups like ELF and ALF(who have yet to kill or injure a single person, unlike RW terrorists), whose crimes are those of property, yet they fail to mention these violent RW groups who HAVE killed and injured people.

It is both a crime of omission and one of exageration. Demonizing the left wing crowd, while giving the RW folks a passs. Sorry, but the double standard on this is glaring.

And anybody can talk the tough talk, but again let me stress, unlike the RW, radical left wing groups have not killed or injured a single person.

[Loonman]

26. RW terrorists usually don't confine themselves to a group or movement

Neo Nazis aren't necessarily terrorists. The only one that comes close is Randall Terry's Operation Rescue/Save America, which usually does get a pass, even though most of their assassins and bombers are either in jail or convicted or dead.

Most RW activist groups just don't have the balls to do stuff like that, only the religious zealots.

If PETA knew better, they'd sever any and all ties with ALF/ELF.

[MadHound]

27. Let's see here

If we go with the defintion of terrorist as using violence or the threat of violence against humans, then Neo Nazis, along with the KKK and other such radical RW groups are certainly terrorists. And as far as having the guts to do stuff like that, well, I would suggest you do some more investigation into groups such as the CSA and Christian Identity. They are very much into the use of violence against people.

But apparently property damage is sooo much more of a problem than violence against humans:eyes:

Let me know when ELF, ALF or PETA has actually done harm to a human being on purpose, then we can consider relabeling them as terrorists. Until then, they are arsonists and vandals. In this day and age when a so called terrorist can be stripped of their civil rights and their very citizenship, I think that we should only reserve the term terrorist for those who actually deserve it, not those who are merely destroying property.

[Loonman]

38. Oh, I will

"Let me know when ELF, ALF or PETA has actually done harm to a human being on purpose"


But I'll stick with ALF/ELF, PETA is ridiculously harmless.



I'll also refer you to post #35

[MalachiConstant]

59. terrorism

also implies that the aforementioned use of voilence is completely indiscriminate. hence the reason terrorists have no regard whether their victims are civilian or military nor do they care about collateral damage.

[northzax]

21. you know what?

John Brown was the moral compass of the US, but he was also a terrorist.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Vandalism is not Terrorism.

A few months ago, some SUV's on a used car lot were torched. The owner of the lot immediately said that "eco-terrorists" were involved. I lost track of the case, but I'm sure a big "eco-terrorist" case would have made the headlines.

Whether eco-terrorists torched the SUV's--or the owner did, because nobody would buy them--there are laws against destroying property.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Yes, in America, People Worship Property

If you ask most people they will tell you it is illegal AND immoral to destroy your own vehicle, as you yourself suggested. And indeed people get arrested for it all the time - not just Hunter S. Thompson, either.

People blasphemously worship before the altar of their personal belongings. Cars in this country are practically wards of the state -- treated better and tracked better than foster children -- and if you don't use one to get around, you have no rights, as New Orleans demonstrates.

"Eco-terrorists" are the people who destroyed New Orleans by defunding the levees, waiting for them to collapse and trapping the people inside (a move long anticipated by local White Power groups in Louisiana.)

[Armstead]

25. I disagree -- It's terrorism

Whethr or not they delibratly kill anyone in their violent temper tantrums, they are trying to instill terror to achieve their social/political goals.

That's over the line, over the top, completely uncalled for and ultimately undermines the very changes they claim to be trying to bring.

Destruction of property is not the same as delibratly killing people. But it's merely a matter of degree.

Fuk 'em. They're terrorists.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. Christians would disagree

About property vs. life being "only a matter of degree"

However in America, property is sacred.

In India, the word "violence" translates as "killing cows".

In America, I am sure in a few hundred years the term "car-killer"
will be used by puritanical "socially liberal" minivan yuppies.

Y'know, the sort of people who ban metal jungle gyms and use laws against rental apartments in their community to keep out Katrina survivors.

"I'm sorry, but as a PARENT with SMALL CHILDREN I HATE THE TERRORISTS
who threaten my domestic security bubble. That includes anything that endangers my property. Jesus taught me that property is a virtue, I'm no longer a Christian but I think we have much to learn from all the great Eastern and Western mystics, especially the ones who teach me that it is possible to wall myself off from misfortune."

[blindpig]

28. Confounding people and property is the problem.

In this country there's hardly any difference, corporate personhood being the worst example. To consider the destruction of property the same as harming a person is a fine display of values.

I honor those who take a stand against the destruction of Nature by putting their freedom and possibly their lives on the line. As long as no one is hurt.

[Armstead]

29. People are hurt in different ways

Although human life and property are not equivalent, destruction of property is hurting people, and possibly killing them.

If someone loses their business or livliehood or investment in a home, they are hurt.

If those nutjobs prevent research that might actually save lives, they are helpijng to kill people.

If someone is working late, or otehrwise gets caught in one of their little bonfires, they are either injured or killed.

[blindpig]

30. A few points.

If someone is in the business of say, clearing land for developers, they get no sympathy from me.

If someone's job is running said bulldozer then they need to get another job. I've had to change jobs a number of times, it's not impossible.

If someone is building a McMansion on ecologically sensitive land they get no sympathy from me.

I guess you're referring to Peta concerning laboratories. To my knowledge their beef has concentrated on animal testing for cosmetics, I've got no problem there. As far as legitimate medical research goes I am utterly against using chimps and other anthropoid apes in research. These creatures are sentient and to my mind using them is no different from using humans as lab rats against their will.

To date no one has been killed or injured in eco actions but if our society does not at least show a willingness to turn things around that record will certainly be broken. Particularly with the growing power of the global corporatists and the maladministration's wide open attack on all of Nature. Thus far the actors have been extremely conscientious but as more despair persons reckless and desperate will enter the fray and things will get uglier. The high concepts of Edward Abbey will give way the near civil war conditions depicted in The Sheep Look Up, by John Brunner.

It would be a whole lot better if we as a society stopped acting like mentally deficient adolescents.

[ArkDem]

31. You are very aptly named.........

:freak:

[Armstead]

32. You can't pick and choose who gets harmed

I have very little sympathy for rapacious developers, but that doesn't not make them fair game for unlawful and destructive vandalism in the name of so-called "better values."

In my book, better values does not include the violent destruction of property, even if I am not in favor of what that property may be. Making such exceptions is the road to chaos and a slippery slope.

Would you condone some group of right wingers who torch the offices of the Sierra Club or MoveOn.org simply because they disagree strongly with them?

Aside from that, it discredits and undermines the very goals and values these so-called activists supposedly want to bring about. Do you really think that violent vandalism is going to change the hearts and minds of society in the direction you want?

[blindpig]

37. It's getting well beyond simple disagreement.

Extinction is forever. Old growth forest cut will not be seen again for many generations, if ever. I hold the existence of a species or unique habitat far above property. Human societies make rights, they cannot make or remake the things of Nature. Depends upon what you place the higher value.

No, it's not terribly good PR, but that's usually not the point. Rather it is a simple attempt to raise the cost of environmental destruction, to make the destroyers feel the only kind of pain they understand, financial. It also serves as a warning to those who would commit similar destruction.

Again as you said, I don't believe this to be the best way to win hearts and minds. But what is? Thirty five years of environmentalism and all we have to show in the battle to save Nature and ourselves is a few half-assed holding actions. In the meantime fronts collapse, armies are annihilated, we are pushed closer to the shoreline. The time for niceties grows shorter by the hour.

Perhaps the problem is not with a handful of individuals willing to commit acts of violence against property to preserve that which they love. Perhaps the real problem is a society willing to destroy itself and the life upon which it is based for no better reasons than greed, sloth and hubris.

[ArkDem]

49. I guess you don't believe in evolution.....

[blindpig]

61. Care to discuss the issue?

Or is cheap one-liners all you got?

Your bit 'o wit implies that a "believer" in evolution should take a godlike view that though we casually exterminate species that it's no big deal as new species will arise through the mechanism of natural selection. What a load of crap.

The flora and fauna currently in existence are the matrix in which we evolved. For hundreds of thousands of years the land, plants and animals were how we defined ourselves, how we understood the world. That for the last 10,000 years we have tried these things called agriculture and civilization is but a blip on the radar in comparison. Every day the evidence mounts that these things are not improving our chances for continued survival, rather the opposite. There is no going back to the pristine state of the hunter gathers but it would be wise to re-examine what it truly means to be human, how it is that mature humans develop and act. Today we appear to be no better than adolescents regressing toward the womb. To recapture what it means to be human will require that we reacquaint ourselves with our inborn nature. And that will require the matrix which our genome has evolved to respond to.

I could make the standard arguments. The utilitarian argument. The canary in the coal mine argument. While these are valid themselves the greater argument is that nature is what makes us truly human. When we diminish nature we diminish ourselves.

Perhaps some of us are less divorced from nature than others and see that the point of no return is approaching at breakneck speed. They see that other methods have been ineffective, barely slowing that shit train of doom, and they act. I cannot blame them.

[ArkDem]

62. There is nothing cheap about my one liners. They are much

more entertaining than drivel.:toast:

[blindpig]

63. Nice argument..

Please do me a favor and put me on ignore.

[ArkDem]

64. NO way, I love the ridiculous!!!

[blindpig]

66. well then

Tell me how I may better entertain you. As the humor escapes me perhaps you might Enlighten me with your Wisdom. Otherwise you're just a boorish pain in the ass.

[ArkDem]

67. Nanner, nanner....pants on fire!

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Every time an SUV is torched

The baby Jesus cries.

Of course, in reality the question is whether malice against an individual or the threat of violence against an individual. These are tangible legal (and moral) distinctions.

[porphyrian]

35. Here's the definition of terrorism via dictionary.com:

ter·ror·ism
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Given this definition, the term is apt.

40. rules are for suckers - signed Bush and Cheney n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

42. If these jerks are our moral compass, then we're lost.

Anyone who vandalizes property, particularly to the extent these people do, should be locked up.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. What a silly argument.

People don't understand what Civil Disobedience refers to.

Nor do most Americans understand degrees of moral conduct. They think either an action is moral, and thus permissible by the state, or it is not (and therefore not justifiable under any extenuating circumstance, even if it reflects badly on the individual it may prevent a greater injustice -- like, say, "assaulting" the Gretna sherriffs to displace them, or stealing fruit from a tree by the side of the road.) It is a subject that a Christian, certainly, should intuitively understand, but most do not.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

50. Civil disobedience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence.

Torching SUVs and apartment complexes is a far cry from a peaceful sit-in. Take away their self-professed "cause" and they would be viewed as common criminals, which they are.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. According to yr precious mainstream dictionaries, violence against capital

is equivalent to violence against people, is equivalent to terrorism.

Just read the other folks posting dictionary definitions of terrorism
to justify their beliefs on the subject of violence or vandalism,

dittoheads all. (Though they're apparently on the left instead of the right)

(Dictionaries which accord folks like Jesus and MLK sainthood while disregarding what they said and did.)

You commit violence in your heart every day. We all commit violence
or related sins through inaction in the face of injusice.

Katrina is only the latest example.

Sometimes your choice is whether to commit evil to stop another evil from being committed, or turn the other cheek to serve as an example and inevitably permit others to engage in injustice.

Both are legitimate viewpoints from an ethics standpoint.

Both types of people will always be with us (the third type of people is "true believers" who have decided the ends justify the means and end up aping their opponents; the fourth type are ivory-tower intellectuals who believe we can set aside morality in favor of codified ethics, or engage in worship of the Law, like Inspector Javert and all too many so-called liberals.)

Burn your dictionary and go back to the primary sources.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

54. Okay...

By your logic, can I torch your car as long as you're not in it? After all, it's just property, according to you.

MLK and Jesus never allowed the use of violence or harm as a means to an end.

Terrorism is used to incite fear into others for the purpose of promoting an ideological agenda. That's what these nuts are doing. The fact that nobody has been killed due to their stunts is astounding, yet the potential harm is also very high. People living next to the apartment complex they burned could have been killed. No agenda justifies these actions. And, yes, people like McVeigh are terrorists, too.

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. Yes, you're correct... it's just property

As a Christian, I'd be obliged to turn the other cheek... but also, I would have to ask if malice was involved on your part. The loss of property in and of itself is a piss-poor excuse for a moral contract, regardless of what the Founders said. Render unto Caesar and all that.

If you break into my house to steal some hot dogs to feed your starving family (not an unrealistic prospect somewhere like New Orleans) many people think you should be shot. You destroyed that pane of glass, and you destroyed that hot dog when you consumed it.

According to your definition, looters are terrorists... ALL people engaging in direct action, even civil disobedience are terrorists... especially people that folks feel threatened by. If nobody feels threatened, nothing usually changes, unless the ruler has a change of heart (always the preferred scenario).

We will have to agree to disagree.

Incite fear in the abstract (especially fear of the loss of property) is a poor definition of terrorism.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

60. The moral contract is not limited to property.

Obviously, it extends to (the harm of) people. Civil disobedience involves the absence of violence, as I mentioned before, therefore people practicing legitimate civil disobedience are not terrorists by my, or any, definition.

The idiots who torched the car lot not only committed a criminal act that could have killed people, but they also hurt the livelihoods of the people who worked at the dealership. What possible good came out of this?

And it's not about worship of property. I don't worship my car, but I need it to get around. I don't worship my apartment, but I need it to live in. It's not worship. It's necessity.

[iwantmycountryback]

45. Tell me you're kidding

I hardly think anybody who causes massive fires and destruction is a moral compass. There are all kinds of "interest groups" who get by without doing that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. I wouldn't call a moral compass, I'd call their actions morally ambiguous.

And point out that (a) immoral, hard-bitten motherf***ers will always be with us -- unfortunately;

And (b) as MLK noted, in the absence of hard-bitten motherf***ers willing to play bad cop, civil disobedience is NOT LIKELY to accomplish anything in the short run, in the material sense. (Though it is still the most moral course of action).

People need to choose to either be moral, choose conscience - or nothing (cf. Kingdom of Heaven where the main character does the right thing, although it leads to the destruction of Jerusalem) and accept the POSSIBILITY, nay PROBABILITY of defeat in their lifetime --
in our day and age this is known as pure nonviolence;

Or commit "sin", in order to move men, and accept the consequences
imposed by the state (and/or their chosen deity) for their actions,
and accept the CERTAINTY of punishment for their actions -- this is known as direct action.

As Gandhi said, all civil disobedience is a threat to someone.

All attempts to move men are immoral. The state is about a monopoly on the use of force for the betterment of the citizenry. No social contract is involved -- except with those citizen groups that posess the means to vie for control of the use of force / production / food.

Those of us who choose to consistently do the moral thing are setting ourselves apart from the social contract and should accept the consequences, including imprisonment, death and the loss of all we hold dear. Those of us who choose to engage in direct action, or politics by any means, are choosing to imperil their own moral standing to accomplish an objective.

Usually the pure nonviolent branch of any movement can rely on the existence of some evil, somewhere, or some "misguided faction" of the movement to impose a countervailing material threat (i.e. bad cop) to counteract the evil they have chosen to confront.

This bad cop could be evil from within bringing forth its own demise (like the neocons) or it could be people choosing to sacrifice their own moral compass to bring down the system (like ELF or James Brown, although Strelnikoff in Dr. Zhivago shows what happens when a person decides that the ends justify the means.)

Short of that, they are choosing to risk life and liberty to do the "right" thing. But -- is anything disruptive immoral or "violent" and thus immoral? Illegal is not the issue. Gandhi said something to the effect that non-violence is far more offensive to the sensibilities of
people who are un-engaged than actual, physical violence would be.

This is borne out in the grudging respect we as a society accord the "just" and/or "courageous" application of force, such as the differing treatment accorded to "honotable" gangsters, John Brown or the Mahdi Army -- compared to protestors being spat upon and generally ignored.

Those engaging in nonviolent (though questionably moral) Direct Action are choosing to risk life, liberty, and their own moral compass to do the expedient and/or "just" thing.

(By the standards of human politics, violence is often considered just; that is how the politics of governance sustains itself in a human society. By the standards of most human religions, violence is almost always immoral. Ethics, especially amongst agnostic, out of power intellectuals, is usually an attempt to codify what is socially acceptable in order to justyify it without resorting to calling it moral.)

[maxsolomon]

48. 1st they came for the eco-terrorists...

and i didn't care because i was not an eco terrorist.

then they came for the environmentalist wackos, and i didn't care because i was not an environmentalist wacko.

then they came for the tree huggers...

etc etc ad nauseum

[Selatius]

65. If people get killed during these acts, it's terrorism

Burning down homes and SUVs may appear right, but when people could potentially get hurt or even die, I disagree. Above all, seek to hurt no one else. Pampleteering and writing letters to the editor would less likely alienate moderate people than burning shit down.