Eco-terrorism

[Boozy]

That's what I was thinking. Canada is the second largest country in the world, but there's that whole Arctic Tundra and Canadian Shield thing. Most of the country is either uninhabitable or is so expensive no one can really live there (see Gravekeeper's posts on CS about shipping fees to Nunavut).

[BlaqueKatt]

and sorry my bad-the Amazon is being cut doew to grow sugarcane and corn to produce biofuels-because say it with me...

"Ethanol and biofuels are better for the environment"-so the Eco-terrorists caused their own damn problem now didn't they?



"Primate scientist Jane Goodall said on Wednesday the race to grow crops for vehicle fuels is damaging rain forests in Asia, Africa and South America and adding to the emissions blamed for global warming."

Hypocrisy at its best. Has anyone considered the long range effects on the environment, climate change and habitat destruction of complete ecosystems after the magnificent rainforests are destroyed and clear burned to kill all vegetation? It seems Brazil cares more about revenues from biodiesel products, but has little regard for its rainforest and its inhabitants. 20% of Brazil’s portion of the rainforest has already been destroyed. How many more acres of virgin rain forest will be destroyed for the biofuel’s cause.

[protege]

"Ethanol and biofuels are better for the environment"-so the Eco-terrorists caused their own damn problem now didn't they?

Somewhat along those lines...did anyone catch the show about how ships are being scrapped in Bangladesh? Cruise ships, old freighters, and tankers are towed over there, and cut up for scrap. Why? Well, someone has to recycle the parts...and with the NIMBY's and environmentalists in the US...the industry had to move somewhere else. Somewhere, where people are poor enough that they'll work in dangerous conditions. Not only is cutting up the ships dangerous, but they're full of all sorts of nasty chemicals. These people have to choose between putting food on the table, or killing a fish, to put it simply. As much as I hate to see wildlife suffer, if I'm put in that position, I'm going to put my family first. Sorry to have to think that way...

[jackfaire]

Thinking about other species as having equal or more rights than you is the luxury of people who do not have to decide if they feed their family or they spare the life of an endangered species.

I can never see parents saying to their kids, "Sorry kids we have to go hungry that bird is endangered and there is plenty of us humans."

[Slytovhand]

"Ethanol and biofuels are better for the environment"-so the Eco-terrorists caused their own damn problem now didn't they?

How do you reach that conclusion?

An organisation (or country) that finds a way to profit from new technologies now means that the technology is bad?

How many more acres of virgin rain forest will be destroyed for the biofuel’s cause.

Again, it's not the 'fault' of the new technology - though I agree with your sentiment.. don't cut down the Amazon!

Thinking about other species as having equal or more rights than you is the luxury of people who do not have to decide if they feed their family or they spare the life of an endangered species.

By logical extension, this should mean a luxury consumer in First World countries should think "I should buy more, and waste more, so that people on the edge of survival have a productive means of making more money - and stuff the environment. So, the whole idea of cutting back our consumerist tendencies is complete bunkum".

[Fryk]

By logical extension, this should mean a luxury consumer in First World countries should think "I should buy more, and waste more, so that people on the edge of survival have a productive means of making more money - and stuff the environment. So, the whole idea of cutting back our consumerist tendencies is complete bunkum".

How is is that necessitated by the plight of the poor? Nothing says that you HAVE to do that. The first world consumerist there would be an idiot, not orrect.

[BlaqueKatt]

How do you reach that conclusion?

eco-terrorists targeted oil refineries because fossil fuels are bad-ok we'll buckle and make bio-fuels-now those are bad as it contributes to the destruction of the rain forest.....

and to prove my point that most eco-terrorists are "holier-than-thou" and realy don't know much about life in general-

"Generally speaking, the Earth Liberation folks are motivated by a deep kind of affective connection to nature that many of them would characterize as spiritual or religious," said Bron Taylor, a professor of religion and nature at the University of Florida. "They believe that the human species is perpetrating a war on nature and that those who are connected to nature and belong to it have a right to defend themselves."

Members who carry out attacks in the name of nature tend to be of college age and well educated,* and typically have an out-of-town recruiter who lures them into the act of crime, said Ron Arnold, the executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

*translate that to rich white suburbanites-most likely.....or as we here in a college town refer to them..."trustafarians"

see also eco-fascist

[Slytovhand]

eco-terrorists targeted oil refineries because fossil fuels are bad-ok we'll buckle and make bio-fuels-now those are bad as it contributes to the destruction of the rain forest.....

But that still doesn't conclude your argument. Yes, fossil fuels are bad for the environment. The next, more logical step would have been looking at other alternative energy production - such as electric engines. Bio-fuels are better, but there's no need to cut down rainforests... well, other than a profit margin to be maintained... which is what I'm arguing against (futilely).

And yes, I am quite aware of a 'holier-than-thou' attitude. It's present in any discussion where someone says "You should...". But the question still comes back to a simple one - if someone or thing is destroying something irrevocably and irreversibly and with complete ignorance of the consequences - consequences which can have a disasterous impact on a lot of others - to what extent should they be stopped from doing that act? Starting wars seems to be an ok thing to do (historically speaking)... so where's the line?


HOLY CRAP!!! I just looked up Ron Arnold and the Centre for the Defense of Free Enterprise.... Centre for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Check the links on the right about the conspiracy theories of the Leftists trying to destroy everything that's good and wholesome in our lives.... While I like a good link and a relevant authority on a matter, someone a tad less biased might be handy.

[BlaqueKatt]

While I like a good link and a relevant authority on a matter, someone a tad less biased might be handy.

Anti-defamation league acceptable?

Change has been incremental. Some activists on the fringes of these causes, frustrated by the pace of legislation, have become violent, creating an underground terrorist movement to combat companies and practices they consider abusive and immoral. During the past two decades, extreme animal rights and environmental activists, or ecoterrorists, have committed hundreds of arsons, bombings and acts of vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage.

In recent years, fast-food restaurants have been firebombed and car dealerships and housing developments burned to the ground in the name of "ecology" and "animal rights." Increasingly, people that work for companies perceived as harming animals or destroying the environment are targeted as well.

In 1989, Foreman and three other members of Earth First! were arrested by the FBI on charges of conspiracy to sabotage nuclear facilities.

Yeah that'll help the planet......

in 1997 ELF claimed responsibility for the arson of a ski resort in Vail, Colorado, causing $12 million in damages - the costliest act of ecoterrorism in American history at the time. The attack included seven separate fires, which destroyed three buildings and damaged four chairlifts. In its communiqué, ELF said, "putting profits ahead of Colorado's wildlife will not be tolerated….We will be back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded [sic] areas."

yet their fires also damaged trees and animals-how much damage do skiiers do?

Rosebraugh was able to infuse the ecoterror movement with a strong anti-capitalist and anti-government bent, which had the effect of broadening its potential targets as well as recruits.

Rosebraugh became the movement's spokesperson in late 1997 and would go on to handle ELF messages taking credit for acts of sabotage resulting in millions of dollars in damages.

Rosebraugh was subpoenaed by the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health to testify at a hearing on ecoterrorism in February 2002. During his testimony, Rosebraugh invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all but a few questions. In a written explanation, he said that "in light of the events on September 11, my country has told me that I should not cooperate with terrorists. I therefore am refusing to cooperate with members of Congress who are some of the most extreme terrorists in history."

does that tell you something about their mindset? Congress passes laws, if they want to get laws passed they have to work with congress-but they refuse calling them terrorists.

Rosebraugh said that "the only possibility of stopping this current military action is to engage in strategies and tactics which severely disrupt the war machine, the U.S. economy, and the overall functioning of U.S. society." He recommended large scale urban riots and attacking financial and media centers, as well as U.S. military establishments.

"Violence is a necessary element of an oppressive struggle…to overthrow an oppressive government…[ELF is] only part of a larger building revolutionary movement that won't stop until it has a successful overthrow of this country."


I cannot see anyone like that as a "good guy"

An anonymous e-mail claiming responsibility for the incident said that activists had used a 10-pound ammonium nitrate bomb "strapped with nails." Although the building sustained minimal damage, the e-mail warned that "we will now be doubling the size of every device we make" and that "customers and their families are considered legitimate targets."

so you could be a target if you're a customer or family member of a customer of that company-still ok with it?

In 1998, the "Animal Rights Militia" threatened to kill 10 scientists if Barry Horne, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for waging a 1994 firebombing campaign that caused £3 million in damage to stores in England, died while on a hunger strike.

Many eco-activists affiliate themselves with a brand of anarchism that opposes modernization and its effects on the natural environment. Some call themselves primitivists, or green anarchists, and contend that humans were better off thousands of years ago, before the advent of farming. Based on an ideology devised by John Zerzan and centered in the Eugene, Oregon, area, primitivism "views technology and civilization as an unnecessary evil and believes humanity would be much happier and healthier outside the modern industrial world.


they're crazy and very dangerous-that is all.

They'd rather live in a time when average life expectancy was less than 30 years-that's more than a bit off....

[Slytovhand]

Anti-defamation league acceptable?

Actually, no.

TBH, and flamed, some of your last post I have absolutely no problems with. And, strangely enough, it's some of the stuff you bolded to make your point - which is that "OMG - we've lost money - this is horrible!!!!"

...members of Congress who are some of the most extreme terrorists in history."

Well, yes, that's true... while not a particularly helpful stance to take, it has some accuracy.

customers and their families are considered legitimate targets."

One of the few things that I actually have an issue with in this context... no, I don't think customers and family should be considered 'legitimate targets'...

In its communiqué, ELF said, "putting profits ahead of Colorado's wildlife will not be tolerated….We will be back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded [sic] areas."

I absolutely agree! Which is exactly what this whole thread is about - profits ought not to be the guiding light to every single action... that other forms of life, which are unable to speak for themselves - need to be stood up for.. as per

"if someone or thing is destroying something irrevocably and irreversibly and with complete ignorance of the consequences - consequences which can have a disasterous impact on a lot of others - to what extent should they be stopped from doing that act? Starting wars seems to be an ok thing to do (historically speaking)... so where's the line?

"

[Savannah]

Ok. Because what that means is stopping evolution. We now wish to throw a monkey wrench. No longer will we accept survival of the fittest. Nothing is allowed to change because extinction is bad so all species must be saved. It is now our decision to balance the ecosystem instead of letting nature do it.

Ah, no. That's not what I'm trying to say, but I can see where you're getting it. What I have a problem with is saying "Oh well, I guess the (insert species here) can't survive in the modern world," while simultaneously saying "OMG, that baby has severe health issues! We have to save it!" Now we're allowing evolution (by your definition) for other species, but not for humans. This leads to human overpopulation and increases health issues.

Another factor is the speed of changes we're expecting other species to cope with. Evolution took place over many generations. How many generations have there been since we started large scale deforestation of the amazon, for example? Not long enough for survival of the fittest to occur before a species is wiped out.

We have taken on the responsibility for evolution; we deny natural selection on a daily basis. Maybe we should allow nature to balence things, but it's a moot point now. We save the lives of humans who would have died without intervention and those humans have children. We breed plants and animals for characteristics we find desirable. Heck, we can put DNA from one organism into another to get the characteristics we want. We breed animals that wouldn't survive in the wild. English bulldog puppies have such large skulls that they must be delivered by caesarean sections. We've stopped evolution for them. Why should they get a free pass while plovers are told "no, we can't spare any beach for you"?

[jackfaire]

Ah, no. That's not what I'm trying to say, but I can see where you're getting it.

Was playing more devil's advocate with my response. Something I am curious about though at what point does our developing as a species stop counting as survival of the fittest?

One of the most interesting views I have seen on Evolution is Stephen Baxter's

[BlaqueKatt]

I absolutely agree! Which is exactly what this whole thread is about - profits ought not to be the guiding light to every single action... that other forms of life, which are unable to speak for themselves - need to be stood up for.. as per "

but was there any harm to the wildlife? I'm sure their fires caused harm, but did the buildings? They're going on their perception only, perception=/=facts Here in WI they protest the deer hunt, we have CWD, no natural predators for the deer, and they starve to death or catch and transmit CWD(mad cow that affects deer-horrible death for the animal). Managing the herd size keeps the animals healthy-they don't care.

[Slytovhand]

I certainly ain't going to suggest that their knowledge or facts are going to be any better or any worse, than any other peoples. But, as we've already seen, humans are extremely short-sighted... and tend not to care much for other life when they can do something in the here and now.

We had similar issues with kangaroos - they get culled every so often (as do brumbies (wild horses), camels, and other animals), and a few years back, even a big scream because they were doing that on the grounds of Parliament House. Oh, then, due to the scream and outrage, they found another solution!

If you accept the 'Climate Change' has been strongly affected by humans, then it would seem fairly obvious (to me, and others) that extreme measures need to be taken - measures that are going to be ignored by those mostly in power and control - and wealthy. (eg, Australia has offered up a target of a mere 5% reduction in Greenhouse gas emissions... versus 40% - or more - has been sought).

[Nyoibo]

We had similar issues with kangaroos - they get culled every so often (as do brumbies (wild horses), camels, and other animals), and a few years back, even a big scream because they were doing that on the grounds of Parliament House. Oh, then, due to the scream and outrage, they found another solution!

Wait, we did? What?