Good question | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

dr
Judith
Zero_One
The Original Yoda
Laurian
tctvjohn
Sarah
Thad Curtz
jlw
Guglielmo

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Lisa P
GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac

Good question

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 7:40am.

From The Seattle Times:

Who is a terrorist?

After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, it was clean-cut Timothy McVeigh, a brooding loner — infused with hatred of the government — who was convicted and put to death for that crime.

After 9/11, which claimed the lives of more than 2,900 people, it was the bearded visage of Osama bin Laden.

This year, the Bush administration has touted the arrests of terrorists of a different kind — homegrown militants who have embarked on arson attacks to protest treatment of animals and the environment.

During the past three years alone, FBI counterterrorism agents have conducted at least 190 investigations into property crimes claimed by the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). None of the crimes injured or killed people.

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

"Terrorism is terrorism —

Submitted by white feather on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 8:12am.

"Terrorism is terrorism — no matter what the motive," declared FBI director Robert Mueller on Jan. 20

I agree, just because property is damaged doesn't make less than terrorism.

What if the NSM guys decided they hated the Olybloggers so much they started burning your cars and homes when you were gone???

Sarah, how do you feel about the ELF, ALF, EARTH FIRSTERS? You indicated in your conservatism study, extremism was your concern. So are the eco-terrorist extreme enough to cause you concern?

Only in Washington state

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 8:41am.

Only in Washington state would we need to wonder whether the destruction of property is "terrorism."

Of course, this is only when the property being destroyed is viewed as "bad." Torching an abortion clinic? Of course that's terrorism.

Who do want the gov't looking for...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 8:53am.

...ELF types or Timothy McViegh/al Qaeda types?

Burning down a building is obviosuly a crime. It's called "arson." It should be treated as (the very serious) crime that it is. If someone burns down a building to get the insurance, we don't call them a "terrorist."

It is obviously nothing like Oklahoma City or 9/11.

(n) terrorism, act of

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 8:57am.

(n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

That's the definition offered by Princeton's online dictionary.

Western Washington

Submitted by white feather on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 9:42am.

TFI, Western Washington is the land of fruits and nuts. Once you get over the Cascades the cleaner air allows for clearer thought I guess. Eastern Washington, is a whole different state, definitely red counties there. And those over there know what terrorism is.

The definition fits the ECO-TERRORISTS precisely.

Thanks for clarifying.

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 10:29am.

Under that definition, none of the "eco-crimes" qualify because they were all destruction of property. Someone like the Unibomber is a different story. He wanted to hurt people.

So you're against special

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 11:27am.

So you're against special laws being created which impose a stiffer penalty for a property crime, right?

Double standards

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 1:05pm.

OK, using that definiton lets look at the Drug War. Is the Drug War a case of our government using terrorism? The government and its allies promote the fear of drugs, drug users, and the use of profits from drugs in media of all kinds - TV, Radio, Newspapers, Films, press conferences, etc. That fear is felt by civilians, and much of it is designed to change their behavior.

The government does not stop there, though. They also raid homes, businesses, public transportation and set up road blocks to check people for (among other things) drugs. Thus the government actively intimidates civilians to coerce them into giving up their property, their liberty, and their safety so that the government can enforce its policies. More than 2/3 of the 2 million people in US prisons - the highest per capita rate in the world's history and the largest single group of prisoners in any country anywhere - are in prison for possession or sale of drugs. So - is this terrorism?

Is it terrorism when the United States hires agents who plant explosive marine mines in the harbors of Nicaragua? The Sandanistas charged that it was. Many agreed.

Is the occupation of Iraq terrorist? Is any war terrorist?

You see, the trouble with your definition is that it leaves out an important modifier. It leaves out the word "unlawful" before the word "violence." The FBI's active definition does not make this mistake. So the obvious conclusion of anyone who reads the FBI's working definition is that terror is OK, as long as it is working for the ones who own the world.

Whipping a slave? No problem! It is when the slave bites the master that we have a problem.

You're not going to find me

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 2:05pm.

You're not going to find me in too much disagreement over the current "War on Drugs," though I wonder if we are dissimilar in how those who can't "handle their shit" should be treated.

I am of the belief that we can choose to use drugs (personal responsibility) but must deal with the consequences (personal accountability) without government intervention.

Any person could be defined as a terrorist. In short, a terrorist is a relative term, depending on where you stand on an issue.

It's all about knowing where you stand. I know where I'm at and I know who my terrorists are.

Relativism

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 05/10/2006 - 3:02pm.

It is very strange to read someone who would probably qualify as a conservative writing things that argue for relativism. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is something I agree with to an extent, in that I accept that people have a perceptual framework which differs from person to person. 100 people can see the exact same event at the same time and have radically different perceptions of it. I am very comfortable with that reality. I see (read) very few "conservatives" who get that or accept it. Most tend to fall into the 'what is right is right' category.

I also believe that the tactics which one uses have a strong effect on how the person acting is perceived, and thus how that person's actions affect the world. I believe that putting anyone in fear for their life is a bad way to engage for positive change. It is in fact the reason I engage for positive change - to eliminate that use of the fear tactic to support US elites controlling the lives of people the world over. So I do not myself try to use that tactic, for that reason. In other words, I am not an actual relativist. I don't think that the ethics change from situation to situation, that the use of a tactic is OK for some and not OK for others. If a tactic is bad, it is bad - and if it is good, it is good. I don't like coercion, and I don't accept it as legitimate. I try not to use it, despite the fact that I would use it in direct self defense - including deadly force. I have the same right to preserve my existence that anyone else does. But my own right to exist does not imply the right to make that living from someone else's labor.

Terrorism is the use of violence or credible threats of violence to coerce someone to change their behavior in the favor of the person using the violence or threats. That would apply to the "ELF" etc if the ELF ever sent out releases which threatened anyone with specific or general consequences... but they do not. They strike, under the banner of an organization which does not exist, has no meetings, and sets no policies, to punish the perpetrators for their rape of the Earth with economic sabotage. The "Elves" try to cost the system too much to continue.

The tactic does not work. Capital learned long ago how to spread risk widely enough to withstand a certain amount of direct loss of capital and labor and still keep on keeping on. (It's called insurance.)

The total campaign's damage over the course of what, ten years? $100 million is trotted out, unaudited and unattributed. That's less than what we spend on the Iraq war in a day. It would still not be effective if we increased this damage level tenfold, or twenty. And under the Greenscare, that expansion of damage will not happen.

Eco-sabotage has failed as a political program, and should be abandoned. It costs ecologically minded people more in lost credibility, community destruction through grand juries and FBI informant infiltration, than we get from it in goodwill, support, and behaviour change in favor of the ecology of our forests.

But is this campaign of sabotage terror? Has it killed anyone? Does anyone lose sleep at night for the effects of this campaign, other than defendants and the FBI which spies on them? No, No, and No. We can't call it terror unless someone is terrified of it. I have yet to read of, or meet, anyone who is.

I say a terrorist is a

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 10:56am.

I say a terrorist is a person that farts in an elevator and gets off before you get on, leaving you as the culprit for all that enter after you.

Boy...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 12:57pm.

I'll say.

Hey Doc

Submitted by white feather on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 11:11am.

Your reading comp a little lacking or what???

How do you figure it doesn't match??

So if something happens to your property, it doesn't affect you, it isn't against you?? It doesn't say injury to civilians, it says against civilians.

I'd be willing to bet...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 1:00pm.

...that these so-called "eco-terrorists" would be horrified if they hurt a person.

Terrorism

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 1:53pm.

"The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" Oxford American Dictionaries.

I definetly side with TFI and (oh god!) white feather on this one. The ELF may have good intentions (better envirnmental standards/policies/practices), but the ends don't justify the means, Rick. How many families suffered because of jobs lost after these fires? How many people live in fear of a personal attack simply because they work for certain companies? I understand how you differentiate the McVeighs' and the ELFs', you say there is a difference in that there was no intention of harm to people, but intentions aside, I think they are still terrorists. They set these fires, an act of violence and intimidation, in the pursuit of political aims, making them, by definition, terrorists.

If violence is not an acceptable answer in Iraq, then violence can't be an acceptable answer in America.

No doubt

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 8:58pm.

I don't think blowing up laboratories is the answer to anything. My point was more that the gov't seem to be putting a lot of energy into tracking down these individuals, instead of finding the really bad guys. I'd sleep better if I felt like the Feds had their priorities straight.

???

Submitted by white feather on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 3:30am.

Causing millions of dollars of damage every year, aren't really bad guys??

Not as bad...

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 8:15am.

...as causing thousands of deaths. Don't ya think?

Perspective

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 1:13pm.

The ELF and ALF, which by the way DO NOT EXIST, have not done "millions of dollars of damage per year." The numbers placed on the fires which have been claimed as ELF actions (which should not be confused with the ALF, known for liberating animals but not for burning anything down that often) have barely affected anyone since about 4 years ago; most of the cases currently being pursued are for stuff that happened around 1998-2001.

In perspective, the auto industry killed tens of thousands of Americans through poor design or implementation of safety measures in cars just last year. Compared to that, the ELF just is not much of a national law enforcement problem. But they are a shiny excuse to harass many antiwar organizers.

YAWN

Submitted by white feather on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 1:30pm.

Drew, what amazes me about your posts is you compare apples to oranges and come up with bananas. What's scary is you seem to think your conclusions are logical.

What is really scary...

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 05/10/2006 - 3:32pm.

What scares me is that you don't see how the preventable deaths of thousands of human beings (due to product maldesign) is a crime. Do you think it is not criminal, as long as someone did it to make money? Or are you still in the dark about the motives of the auto industry?

So "poor design" is on par

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 2:08pm.

So "poor design" is on par with "matches + gasoline + University of Washington research facility?"

Lets compare

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 05/10/2006 - 3:25pm.

OK - Here is an equation for you.

A human being, we will call her Bob, tries to get something done. Bob can easily predict that her actions have a certain element of personal and public risk. She might get hurt, someone else might get hurt, if she does this thing. She weighs the relative risks, decides that the greatest risk is for herself getting hurt, and takes steps to minimize that personal risk... but not the public risk. And then she acts. The action harms someone else. Is she liable for the injury? YES! She took action which caused harm, she could have and did predict that the harm could occur, and she did not take steps to minimize the public part of that harm.

Now, it does not matter whether Bob is doing something like designing and building cars for sale, or burning down a research facility for personal political reasons. Bob has harmed someone through her actions. She could have, should have, and did predict the public part of that harm, but did not take steps to mitigate that harm.

If Bob is an auto manufacturer, she makes that decision based on how much money it would cost her in lawsuits versus how much it would cost to properly mitigate the harm potential. The harm which results is oten preventable harm, but simply not expensive enough (for Bob) to warrant losing profit for the mitigation.

If Bob is an eco-saboteur, she has historically been successful at avoiding public harm she did not intend. (The economic damages were intended in her actions.)

Is that a little clearer for you, or do you only know how to apply the label "bad deed done" to someone who is an individual, and not someone who is actually a system of people filling roles within a corporation?

Why is it

Submitted by white feather on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 1:56pm.

Why are most of the olybloggers so vocal against the war, but silent or supportive of the other side of the war. And also with domestic/eco terror, either silent or supportive?

Horrified, don't think so. Remember these are the same guys that spike trees that ultimately injure loggers, amoungst other nasty things that get people hurt, i.e. stringing wires across logging roads.

Rob

Submitted by white feather on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 2:01pm.

Hope that didn't hurt too much!! :)

Reference my blog that I neglected on capital punishment, yes I am against it in all but the very most heinous individuals, and even then on the fence.

Sounds like TFI...LOL

Submitted by white feather on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 2:36pm.

"infused with hatred of the government"

Sarah, where are you??

Submitted by white feather on Sun, 05/07/2006 - 5:47pm.

Sarah, I see you have been posting since I posted my question to you. I'm really curious what you think about the behavior of the ELF, ALF, EF, etc. Is their action(s) too extreme??

Missed it

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 8:29am.

I must have missed it, was there one addressing me?

Honestly, I haven't read up yet enough on what those groups are doing to give you a good answer on that. I can answer more broadly though. I'm not an extremist. Extremists can be extremists under all sorts of guises, they may even sound at first to me like I'd agree with them, but what counts is their behavior.

An example more on my own turf: I do what I can to educate people about Neo-Nazis. But I know that everyone who says they resist Neo-Nazis isn't necessarily anyone whose tactics I agree with. Some folks are agent provocateurs. Some are into violence for the sake of violence. Some come into communities, work to escalate the level of tension, start fights, then somehow disappear when it is consequence time.

This quote is helpful to me: "The one thing an extremist needs more than anything is an enemy. An external enemy clears away strife.". (Michael Shermer from Denying History)

No matter how upset I may get about things, I still want everyone to be safe. I don't want people to get hurt, that is why I am in this work in the first place. Safety first. For everyone involved.

A bit of a copout I believe

Submitted by white feather on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 9:21am.

C'mon Sarah, you are no dummy and certainly are very aware of what these groups get accused of and claim responsibility for. Your response disappoints me a bit. I figured you to be a person of principle, and you seem genuine. But you do the political tap dance on this question.

Like I posted above, it seems that the liberal faction at olyblog is less willing to denounce violence or criminal behavior when they support the underlying issue. If they don't like the war, they denounce the violence there. But, if they are supportive of Corrie, they minimize the violence done by Palestinians. Here we have eco-terrorists that cause 100's of millions of damage each year, injure people in the process, some have died from those injuries, yet because ELF, ALF, EF, and others are about issues many here support, you won't denounce their behavior.

So are you against all extremism or just some?

No

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 9:41am.

I know when I am copping out, that isn't one. I'm not doing a political tap dance. I truly don't know enough about the specifics. And you are making some really big inaccurate assumptions about me.

To be as blunt as possible: Everyone needs to stop f*cking killing each other. Everyone needs to stop with the abuse and trauma. No bombing, raping, genocide, hate crimes, slicing or dicing. Death is death. And just because I didn't happen to mention a specific type of abuse, doesn't mean I support it. Just because I didn't mention Darfur, or conflict diamonds, or ethnic cleansing, or anything else, doesn't mean I do not care.

I am not an extremist, I do not support extremism. I don't support bombing places, arson, releasing lab animals to the wild, destroying research offices, threatening people. Nor do I support bombing health clinics, destroying medical file offices, threatening people. I am not an extremist. I am talking about behavior here. There are extremists on all sides, and there are more than two sides.

As I said, safety first, for everyone. E v e r y o n e.

A response, and an opinion, thanks

Submitted by white feather on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 10:09am.

So which assumptions are inaccurate? That you are genuine, not a dummy, very aware, a person of principle? All of which I guage only by what I have seen here. And all of which I believe are complimentary.

But yes, I finally did get a substantive response from you, thank you.....

I'm sure everyone here on Olyblog have some opinions about me, all developed by what I scribble here. That's all many of us know about the other. I'm sure some, maybe many of you, think I'm a whack job. But if we were to sit down and interact in person, I'm guessing we would have much in common.

It sounds like you are truly against all extremism, like you said in your earlier post. Getting you to say it was a challenge though. Sorry, I kind of lumped you in with some of your colleges here who won't answer the questions.

I personally think there is a time and place for what might at the time be considered extremism, but later might be considered patriotic or heroic. But the need for that kind of extremism would be for extreme, historical events. So, basically I agree with you to a 99 percentile, extremism is bad.

Maybe I will post a poll or a question later on an extreme situation just to see how we all might respond. Then you can take a deep peek into White Feather's mind. Be afraid, very afraid. :-)

Thanks Sarah, hopefully I didn't bring up your blood pressure too much. :-)

I'm cool

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 10:38am.

You just caught me on a rough morning, I'm reading a book about lynching, and I'm understandably emotional.

Oh we would do fine in person is my guess, no problem. And it isn't that I was avoiding the issue or you, I'm just swamped. My choice to do the research I'm doing, but still, sometimes I'm doing too much. Then I have to pick and choose my battles, I skim things or don't read them at all, because I'm running on fumes.

I agree, sometimes there is a place for what could be called extreme action. Just not where I want to live most of my life. Part of the type of extremism I'm talking about includes dehumanizing the other side. Not only seeing the other side as the enemy, but as somehow not human. Inferior. Read nukeisrael.com and you can see this in action. And dehumanizing someone, anyone, can make it that much easier to kill them.

Sometimes I am furious, sometimes I'd prefer to be able to see Nazis as not really people, but I have to prevent myself from falling for that. Because then ultimately I'm right in the same pit they are.

I don't dehumanize people who have SUVs either. Or people who work in labs testing on animals. I don't dehumanize any people and I don't advocate violence against them.

I don't think you are a whack job. I know that how we all communicate online is only part of the portrait of anyone.

After finishing reading this book I should start a Send Sarah to Hawaii Campaign for a much needed break.

Hawaii

Submitted by white feather on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 10:47am.

Lets all of us olybloggers go to Hawaii, and sit on the beach, drink Mai tai's and discuss politics.

Good call

Submitted by Sarah on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 10:50am.

I think this really does need to happen. See, how can we get perspective on Oly without occasionally being someplace else? Plus, if I get weary of political talk I can build sandcastles.

Ah, Hawaii. The last state

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 12:15pm.

Ah, Hawaii. The last state to be added for commercial purposes.

If we really wanted to get a

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 2:10pm.

If we really wanted to get a good conversation going, a subject we touched on before was whether or not McVeigh would still be viewed as a terrorist in 100 years (if not sooner).

Lets do it

Submitted by white feather on Mon, 05/08/2006 - 4:57pm.

I would entertain that discussion....and it would dovetail into my discussion later.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: