Environmental Terrorism

[SuperJerk 0]

Eco-Terror's Growing Threat

Nov. 10, 2005(CBS) Despite racking up over $100 million in damages using arson and sabotage, environmental and animal rights extremists still haven’t stopped Americans from driving gas-guzzling SUVs, developing pristine land or conducting animal research.

 

Now, some of the extremists say it’s time to start killing people to make their point. 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley reports on extremist groups collectively known as eco-terrorists, which the FBI says are now the biggest domestic terror threat, this Sunday, Nov. 13, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

 

A spokesman for extreme animal rights groups believes killing humans is justified. “I think people who torture innocent beings should be stopped,” says Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a California trauma surgeon. “If they won’t stop when you ask them nicely, they don’t stop when you demonstrate to them what they’re doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary.”

 

Though Vlasak wouldn’t kill any researchers himself, he hopes others will use "whatever means necessary" to stop the use of animals in experiments.

 

The FBI thinks that scenario is possible. “There have been multiple statements made regarding assassinations and or killing of individuals involved in…biomedical research and that kind of thing,” says John E. Lewis, deputy assistant director for counter terrorism at the FBI.

 

The bureau is actively investigating more than 150 crimes claimed by groups like the Animal Liberation Front or its spin-off, the Earth Liberation Front.

 

Individuals claiming to represent these groups have incinerated SUVS, fire-bombed buildings and released lab animals, destroying decades of invaluable research over the last 15 years. In its largest act, the ELF burned down a nearly-completed $23 million apartment complex near San Diego to protest urban sprawl.

 

The question of violence is causing a rift in the movement. ALF and ELF members who use arson claim to be non-violent, saying they are simply destroying property. Rod Coronado, a former ALF cell leader who served jail time for arson, says, “For every arson that I’ve carried out, there’s probably three or four not carried out for that fear of injuring someone.” Dr. Valsak disagrees, saying the use of arson while espousing a no-harm-to-humans rule is “disingenuous.” “We have to look at what works,” he tells Bradley.

 

The FBI is afraid that a “lone wolf” member of these loosely-organized groups will do something to up the ante.

 

They have identified one suspect who may be just such a threat. Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 27-year-old fugitive from San Rafael, Calif., is suspected of planting three bombs late at night near two companies targeted by animal rights groups. In the first case, a second bomb was deliberately set to go off an hour after the first – a method used to kill or injure first responders like police, firemen and medics. The third bomb, detonated a few weeks later, was strapped with nails.

 

Asks the FBI’s Lewis, “Why does someone build an improvised explosive device with shrapnel if they are not intending to cause someone grievous harm, if not worse?”

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/...in1036067.shtml

[Guest Fishyswa]

Goes to show you how much worse off we'd be if Muslims actually cared about America....

[2GOLD 0]

Terrorism is evil no matter who does it. I don't care who you are. Terrorism is what it is.

And nothing says, "I love my Earth mother", like blowing shit up and filling the air with smoke and fumes from explosions.

 

When stupid people are allowed to make groups.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am sorry, and I might be the only one who thinks this way, but IMO, burning 20 SUVs in a car lot is not an act of terrorism. Now, if this article is accurate and they start killing PEOPLE then yes that would be considered terrorism, but I think the "terrorism" term is being thrown around in order to scare people and make them take a hard-line stance against these people.

 

Now, in no way shape or form am I saying that what these fuckheads do is right, however I just don't feel that burning a Ford Explorer, and breaking into unoccupied houses are acts of terrorism.

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

Despite racking up over $100 million in damages using arson and sabotage, environmental and animal rights extremists still haven’t stopped Americans from driving gas-guzzling SUVs, developing pristine land or conducting animal research.

 

Every bit helps. These people are heros.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I can't wait for the lot of these eco-fucks to become deathly ill and require medicine that has been developed through animal testing.

 

Oh, wait, the head of PETA is diabetic, right? And wasn't insulin developed thanks to animal testing? Oh, I get it...others can't use these products, but you can. Fuck off and die, says I. It's time the eco-fucks wake up and realize that for every tree cut down in the forest, another is planted, and human beings need to survive more than Mr. and Mrs. Bunny Rabbit (which, you know, populate much of the earth still, and some are only bread FOR animal testing).

 

As far as animal testing goes? My stance is this: if they're testing cosmetics? Then whoever's doing the testing needs to be kicked as hard as possible in the nuts/cunt. I don't care what a chimp looks like with blush and lipstick on, it's not important. But figuring out ways to treat cancer, HIV, and other illnesses that claim thousands of lives a year? Yeah, take that needle and stick it into that fucking dog right now.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm torn. Walking into Joe's Ford and burning an Explorer in the wee hours isn't some great accomplishment. But I agree with NCMike that it's not terrorism. Vandalism and destruction of property, but not terrorism.

[Justice 0]

I am sorry, and I might be the only one who thinks this way, but IMO, burning 20 SUVs in a car lot is not an act of terrorism.  Now, if this article is accurate and they start killing PEOPLE then yes that would be considered terrorism, but I think the "terrorism" term is being thrown around in order to scare people and make them take a hard-line stance against these people. 

 

Now, in no way shape or form am I saying that what these fuckheads do is right, however I just don't feel that burning a Ford Explorer, and breaking into unoccupied houses are acts of terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you actually read the article?

 

Individuals claiming to represent these groups have incinerated SUVS, fire-bombed buildings and released lab animals, destroying decades of invaluable research over the last 15 years. In its largest act, the ELF burned down a nearly-completed $23 million apartment complex near San Diego to protest urban sprawl.

 

That's not terrorism?

[Golgo 13 0]

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.

 

Seriously. Terrorism isn't just relegated to killing others to get your point across, and more importantly, steps have to be taken to prevent any number of wackjobs from taking it to that next level. This requires that any large group with the means and manpower be labeled as terrorists. No one has killed yet, but as stated, it doesn't mean they aren't willing to.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am sorry, and I might be the only one who thinks this way, but IMO, burning 20 SUVs in a car lot is not an act of terrorism.  Now, if this article is accurate and they start killing PEOPLE then yes that would be considered terrorism, but I think the "terrorism" term is being thrown around in order to scare people and make them take a hard-line stance against these people. 

 

Now, in no way shape or form am I saying that what these fuckheads do is right, however I just don't feel that burning a Ford Explorer, and breaking into unoccupied houses are acts of terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you actually read the article?

 

Individuals claiming to represent these groups have incinerated SUVS, fire-bombed buildings and released lab animals, destroying decades of invaluable research over the last 15 years. In its largest act, the ELF burned down a nearly-completed $23 million apartment complex near San Diego to protest urban sprawl.

 

That's not terrorism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds like Arson to me!?!

[Justice 0]

Individuals claiming to represent these groups have incinerated SUVS, fire-bombed buildings and released lab animals, destroying decades of invaluable research over the last 15 years. In its largest act, the ELF burned down a nearly-completed $23 million apartment complex near San Diego to protest urban sprawl.

 

Sounds like Arson to me!?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

Alright, a better way of putting this: If a Neo-Nazi group destroys a Holocaust Museum with no one in it, is it arson or terrorism?

Edited November 15, 2005 by Justice

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

Alright, a better way of putting this: If a Neo-Nazi group destroys a Holocaust Museum with no one in it, is it arson or terrorism?

 

It's a good thing.

[NoCalMike 0]

Individuals claiming to represent these groups have incinerated SUVS, fire-bombed buildings and released lab animals, destroying decades of invaluable research over the last 15 years. In its largest act, the ELF burned down a nearly-completed $23 million apartment complex near San Diego to protest urban sprawl.

 

Sounds like Arson to me!?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

Alright, a better way of putting this: If a Neo-Nazi group destroys a Holocaust Museum with no one in it, is it arson or terrorism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A Hate Crime, I have seen reports of churches and/or jewish temples being burned by fuckheads, and never once was the "terrorism" card dealt. I am not saying "eco-terrorism" can't exist, but IMO, burning an SUV is not an act of terrorism, it is vandalism.

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

He's trying to use 'universally' hated figures in exchange for ones people don't really know about to make his point. It's not fair for the discussion.

[Justice 0]

Individuals claiming to represent these groups have incinerated SUVS, fire-bombed buildings and released lab animals, destroying decades of invaluable research over the last 15 years. In its largest act, the ELF burned down a nearly-completed $23 million apartment complex near San Diego to protest urban sprawl.

 

Sounds like Arson to me!?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

Alright, a better way of putting this: If a Neo-Nazi group destroys a Holocaust Museum with no one in it, is it arson or terrorism?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A Hate Crime, I have seen reports of churches and/or jewish temples being burned by fuckheads, and never once was the "terrorism" card dealt. I am not saying "eco-terrorism" can't exist, but IMO, burning an SUV is not an act of terrorism, it is vandalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's ignoring the point and trying to devalue it. We aren't talking about simple "Burning of an SUV". We are talking the destruction of an entire apartment complex, and threats of violence and murder. This is not terrorism to you?

 

Edit: What does it take to cross over from "Hate Crime" to "Terrorism"? Isn't 'Murder' one of the most cited uses of 'Hate Crime' legislation?

Edited November 15, 2005 by Justice

[SuperJerk 0]

In the "60 Minutes" piece, the people they interviewed actually did advocate harming human beings.

 

Also...

 

They have identified one suspect who may be just such a threat. Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 27-year-old fugitive from San Rafael, Calif., is suspected of planting three bombs late at night near two companies targeted by animal rights groups. In the first case, a second bomb was deliberately set to go off an hour after the first – a method used to kill or injure first responders like police, firemen and medics. The third bomb, detonated a few weeks later, was strapped with nails.

 

Asks the FBI’s Lewis, “Why does someone build an improvised explosive device with shrapnel if they are not intending to cause someone grievous harm, if not worse?”

[2GOLD 0]

Umm, to make things really hard for the clean up crew?

That's all I got Mr. Lewis.

[The Czech Republic 0]

IMO, burning an SUV is not an act of terrorism, it is vandalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What?!? It's a fucking automobile, and a precarious one at that. you're not just damaging it, the damn thing is liable to explode, what with being full of gasoline and all. Spray-painting a wall is vandalism. This is a step up

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Vandalism would entail that the repercussions couldn't possibly kill anybody in the direct vicinity.

 

Set a car on fire with a full gas tank, and that gas tank is likely to explode if the fire isn't extinguished soon enough. BOOM! Anybody within, say, a 50-foot radius that isn't dead or injured is a lucky motherfucker and should play the lottery that night.

 

Okay...would you say that the woman whose bomb didn't go off in Jordan isn't a terrorist because she didn't kill anybody?

[NoCalMike 0]

Vandalism would entail that the repercussions couldn't possibly kill anybody in the direct vicinity.

 

Set a car on fire with a full gas tank, and that gas tank is likely to explode if the fire isn't extinguished soon enough. BOOM! Anybody within, say, a 50-foot radius that isn't dead or injured is a lucky motherfucker and should play the lottery that night.

 

From the cases I have heard, the damage has been done purposely when no one has been around, and has not in the least been targeting civilian death(s). Like I said before, if they are intending to start killing people on purpose then yes, it then crosses over to being terrorism.

 

You could compare this to kids egging someone's house, or spray painting their driveway, is that an act of terrorism? If the neighborhood jackass goes around breaking car windows out, is that terrorism, or is it an idiot going around vandalizing property?

 

Okay...would you say that the woman whose bomb didn't go off in Jordan isn't a terrorist because she didn't kill anybody? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, she obviously was intending to commit an act of terrorism. Intent has a role in these things.Hell people get drunk and run over folks and barely get charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, yet idiots spray painting "ELF" on a car are being labeled terrorists!?!

[Justice 0]

Vandalism would entail that the repercussions couldn't possibly kill anybody in the direct vicinity.

 

Set a car on fire with a full gas tank, and that gas tank is likely to explode if the fire isn't extinguished soon enough. BOOM! Anybody within, say, a 50-foot radius that isn't dead or injured is a lucky motherfucker and should play the lottery that night.

 

From the cases I have heard, the damage has been done purposely when no one has been around, and has not in the least been targeting civilian death(s). Like I said before, if they are intending to start killing people on purpose then yes, it then crosses over to being terrorism.

 

You could compare this to kids egging someone's house, or spray painting their driveway, is that an act of terrorism? If the neighborhood jackass goes around breaking car windows out, is that terrorism, or is it an idiot going around vandalizing property?

 

This is really sad. You are trying to equate "Throwing eggs at a house" with "Blowing up SUVs and Apartment Complexes". Do you really not see the difference between #1 and #2?

 

Okay...would you say that the woman whose bomb didn't go off in Jordan isn't a terrorist because she didn't kill anybody? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, she obviously was intending to commit an act of terrorism. Intent has a role in these things.Hell people get drunk and run over folks and barely get charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, yet idiots spray painting "ELF" on a car are being labeled terrorists!?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, first off, it's obvious these people aren't just 'spraypainting' ELF on cars. They are blowing them up.

 

And I bolded that one word because of this statement made above:

 

They have identified one suspect who may be just such a threat. Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 27-year-old fugitive from San Rafael, Calif., is suspected of planting three bombs late at night near two companies targeted by animal rights groups. In the first case, a second bomb was deliberately set to go off an hour after the first – a method used to kill or injure first responders like police, firemen and medics. The third bomb, detonated a few weeks later, was strapped with nails.

 

Asks the FBI’s Lewis, “Why does someone build an improvised explosive device with shrapnel if they are not intending to cause someone grievous harm, if not worse?”

 

I suppose that's definitely not intending to hurt anyone, right?

 

I really am surprised you go so far out of your way to defend these people, NoCal. Grow a pair and realize these guys aren't people who are getting bad media press, but out to hurt people. Hell, join the Sierra Club or something, but don't try to defend these people.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I'd just like to point out something to you again, NoCal:

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would bold certain parts of the definition of "terrorism" that help my point, but the whole definition does.

 

Is this group of eco-fucks using force/violence? Yes.

Is this group of eco-fucks organized? Yes.

Are they using force/violence against people/property? Yes.

Are they doing it with the intent of intimidating or coercing the people themselves/owners of the property? Yes.

Are they doing it for their own idealogical beliefs? Yes.

 

...since the answer to every question has been "yes," how are they NOT terrorists?

[NoCalMike 0]

Vandalism would entail that the repercussions couldn't possibly kill anybody in the direct vicinity.

 

Set a car on fire with a full gas tank, and that gas tank is likely to explode if the fire isn't extinguished soon enough. BOOM! Anybody within, say, a 50-foot radius that isn't dead or injured is a lucky motherfucker and should play the lottery that night.

 

From the cases I have heard, the damage has been done purposely when no one has been around, and has not in the least been targeting civilian death(s). Like I said before, if they are intending to start killing people on purpose then yes, it then crosses over to being terrorism.

 

You could compare this to kids egging someone's house, or spray painting their driveway, is that an act of terrorism? If the neighborhood jackass goes around breaking car windows out, is that terrorism, or is it an idiot going around vandalizing property?

 

This is really sad. You are trying to equate "Throwing eggs at a house" with "Blowing up SUVs and Apartment Complexes". Do you really not see the difference between #1 and #2?

 

Okay...would you say that the woman whose bomb didn't go off in Jordan isn't a terrorist because she didn't kill anybody? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, she obviously was intending to commit an act of terrorism. Intent has a role in these things.Hell people get drunk and run over folks and barely get charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, yet idiots spray painting "ELF" on a car are being labeled terrorists!?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, first off, it's obvious these people aren't just 'spraypainting' ELF on cars. They are blowing them up.

 

And I bolded that one word because of this statement made above:

 

They have identified one suspect who may be just such a threat. Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 27-year-old fugitive from San Rafael, Calif., is suspected of planting three bombs late at night near two companies targeted by animal rights groups. In the first case, a second bomb was deliberately set to go off an hour after the first – a method used to kill or injure first responders like police, firemen and medics. The third bomb, detonated a few weeks later, was strapped with nails.

 

Asks the FBI’s Lewis, “Why does someone build an improvised explosive device with shrapnel if they are not intending to cause someone grievous harm, if not worse?”

 

I suppose that's definitely not intending to hurt anyone, right?

 

I really am surprised you go so far out of your way to defend these people, NoCal. Grow a pair and realize these guys aren't people who are getting bad media press, but out to hurt people. Hell, join the Sierra Club or something, but don't try to defend these people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm not defending them in the least. They should be held responsible for the crimes they commit, I just don't think in MOST CASES, what they do equates to Terrorism. The ONE STORY you keep posting and quoting, well yes it looks like in THAT case it crosses over because it is intending to hurt or even murder civilians, but in most cases of ELF or whatever the hell they call themselves, they spray paint and burn cars in the middle of the night when no one is around, because they are purposely trying to NOT hurt PEOPLE.

 

Just as well as you are pasting the worst of the worst things these enviorn-groups do, I could also point out stories by the media where they were saying that a crime as simple as spray painting cars was eco-TERRORISM. In other words, the only real difference here seems to be whether or not the suspects are a member of ELF or not, because if they weren't a member of ELF then there is no way it would be reported as ECO-Terrorism

 

All I am saying is that things should be treated case to case as far as the crime being commited. Just like burning down a church that just happened to house a large majority of african american members, wouldn't necessarily be a hate-crime, it depends on the details of the case.

[NoCalMike 0]

I'd just like to point out something to you again, NoCal:

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would bold certain parts of the definition of "terrorism" that help my point, but the whole definition does.

 

Is this group of eco-fucks using force/violence? Yes.

Is this group of eco-fucks organized? Yes.

Are they using force/violence against people/property? Yes.

Are they doing it with the intent of intimidating or coercing the people themselves/owners of the property? Yes.

Are they doing it for their own idealogical beliefs? Yes.

 

...since the answer to every question has been "yes," how are they NOT terrorists?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'd equate ECO-Terrorism, to poisoning water supplies to kill the masses, or unleashing a deadly virus. Not Burning an SUV.

[Guest Fishyswa]

Dictionary's disagree.

 

It's terrorism exactly. Why would terrorism be called terrorism if it just covered the destruction of human life? It's hard to terrorize dead people.

[Special K 0]

Everyone should read Zodiac by Neal Stephenson. It's fucking hilarious. Book about an eco-terrorist (the term has existed for a good long while before 9/11), The main character's just a complete prick, and he's meant to be.

 

bread FOR animal testing

 

Delicious.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'd equate ECO-Terrorism, to poisoning water supplies to kill the masses, or unleashing a deadly virus.  Not Burning an SUV.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's bioterrorism, I think. Yeah blowing up giant cars is great for the environment, too

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Anything done biologically is bio-terrorism, yes. Eco-terrorism is any act of terrorism (ie. any act designed to instill terror in a group of people to further one's ideals and/or beliefs) done for the benefit of the environment.

[2GOLD 0]

I'd equate ECO-Terrorism, to poisoning water supplies to kill the masses, or unleashing a deadly virus.  Not Burning an SUV.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's bioterrorism, I think. Yeah blowing up giant cars is great for the environment, too

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's what I said. Nothing like burning a parking lot full of SUV's that'll explode and fill the sky with black smoke and debris for miles and miles. BRILLANT!

[NoCalMike 0]

I'd equate ECO-Terrorism, to poisoning water supplies to kill the masses, or unleashing a deadly virus.  Not Burning an SUV.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's bioterrorism, I think. Yeah blowing up giant cars is great for the environment, too

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's what I said. Nothing like burning a parking lot full of SUV's that'll explode and fill the sky with black smoke and debris for miles and miles. BRILLANT!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah I never said I defend these idiots, or even think what they do makes any sense what-so-ever.