[bodigami]

Why there have being no serious ecoterrorist acts? From a security point of view, cities are too vulnerable. ie: spreading a coctail of deseases in the water city systems.

With how easy people talk about ways to kill many humans at once, at least in this forum, why no one implements one of them? Are people really willing to make terrorist acts with ecology as their "ideal"?

This thread is to discuss in general ecoterrorism, the concept, ethics and lack of them, and so on.

[Hermes]

Beware posters:

The FBI can and will use anything you say here to incriminate you. I suggest being very careful with what you say.

[bodigami]

I am not on the FBI's jurisdiction...

And cann't someone talk freely about ecoterrorism? ...however, it's because it's lacking. If not it will be a post about a specific ecoterrorist attack.

[Blacksmith]

CIA will get you then.

[steam_cannon]

Probably because most "Terrorists" don't fit the Dr. Evil profile. The
people we classify as terrorists are often people who believe in some
cause they think is worth dying for, have a religious philosophy that
fits well with killing themselves, and a big chip on their shoulder like a
grudge against a group that keeps invading their country or region.
There's nothing in there about scorching the earth.

So whatever "the terrorists" goals and motives are, they are not usually
destroying the planet. Corporations do that already and has it made
anyone think, so why should terrorists? Also look at what terrorists
usually do, the MO is to they attack those in power. And that could
explain why terrorists tend to target planes of relatively rich powerful
people rather then blowing up buses of the poor. If the rich in our
country rode on buses they would target them there. Getting back
to the topic, if the terrorists went all scorched earth destroying the
environment, even the people in their own countries wouldn't give
them support.

So IMO terrorists targeting "the environment" just wouldn't make much sense.

With how easy people talk about ways to kill many humans at
once, at least in this forum

Your wording sounds kind of trollish...

[bodigami]

no no, ecoterrorists are those that think killing some random humans will save the environment

(...)

With how easy people talk about ways to kill many humans at
once, at least in this forum

Your wording sounds kind of trollish...

Is it true or not? That in this forum some posters talk about how, when and why to kill many humans?

[Alcassin]

Ted Kaczynski is one of the most know ecoterrorists. Google

[seldom_seen]

"Ecoterrorism" is obsolete.

There is simply no group of vandals or arsonists that could strike a blow to our economy or "way of life," that would in any meaningful way add up to the devastation that could be wrought by a banker.

[seldom_seen]

Eco: Latin for household, house.
Terrorist: one who creates, disseminates, etc. terror.

EcoTerrorist: bedbug? Skunk? Mold? Dirty dishes?

heh. Termites!

[steam_cannon]

Is it true or not? That in this forum some posters talk about how, when and why to kill many humans?

Your description as worded describes posts against the code of conduct.
If you are aware of any violations of the code of conduct please advise
a moderator.

Ted Kaczynski is one of the most know ecoterrorists. Google

Googling makes more sense then picking our brains. But one thing
I'll point out, Kaczynski and all the ecoterrorists up to the present...

Individuals

Except otherwise noted, these individuals have been convicted under terrorism laws for eco-terrorism.

* Tre Arrow – set fire to trucks used in tree logging.
* Rod Coronado – at a public gathering, explained how to create an arson device.
* Ted Kaczynski (the "Unabomber") – used a mail-bomb campaign to force the Washington Post to publish his manifesto. (Not convicted under terrorism laws.)
* Wiebo Ludwig – saboteur of petroleum mining.
* Jeff Luers and William Cottrell – arsonists of SUVs.
* Eric McDavid – attempted to construct a bomb in a plan to sabotage the Nimbus Dam, the U.S. Forest Service's Institute of Forest Genetics, and other targets.[24]
* Daniel McGowan – set fire to a lumber farm.[25]
* William C. Rodgers – accused of setting fire to the National Wildlife Research Center in Olympia, Washington.
* Craig Rosebraugh – ELF "spokesman." (Not convicted of any crime.)
* Darren Thurston – set fire to a horse corral at the Bureau of Land Management after releasing the horses.
* Peter Daniel Young – released mink into the wild from fur farms.

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

Notice how pretty much none of the terrorists on this list of "eco-terrorists"
attacked the environment. Most of these attacks were on individuals or
built property. So there really aren't any good examples of terrorists
targeting the environment.

So in summary, the best present definition of eco-terrorist is a
terrorist who terrorizes to increase awareness of environmental
issues. That doesn't fit the MO of any terrorists from the middle
east. And if a middle eastern terrorist did attack an environmental
target, the intention of the attack would likely be to hurt powerful
people and not to raise environmental awareness. And even if
terrorists started targeting poor people, destroying farms
whatever, it still would not be eco-terrorism. It would be just plain
old terrorism, no new word needed.

This thread is to discuss in general ecoterrorism, the concept, ethics
and lack of them, and so on.

Now that you understand that eco-terrorism is not defined as
terrorists attacking the environment, but more accurately defined as
terrorists attacking people and property like any other terrorist act
but twisted towards raising environmental awareness...

If this is really what you want to discuss a good question might be,
will increased coal use, big wind turbine installations, worsening
global warming problems, all that... Cause more home grown
"eco-terrorists" to attack individuals and property in the name of
saving the environment? And the answer is sadly yes.

If you want to discuss why middle eastern terrorists don't attack the
environment, that's because it doesn't change anything. Corporations
destroy huge tracks of land and no one bats an eye. And even if
middle eastern terrorists did want to attack poor people in cities,
the poor people in their country who support them would probably
lynch every last one of them. Most of these international terrorists
are seen as hero's in their countries and doing gods work, they are
supported by poor who are suffering in their country and rich people
who want the support of those poor, like Osama. Osama types
want to be seen as a Robin Hood, so attacking poor people in cities
doesn't fit the MO.

[steam_cannon]

Eco: Latin for household, house.
Terrorist: one who creates, disseminates, etc. terror.

EcoTerrorist: bedbug? Skunk? Mold? Dirty dishes?

Sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite!

[mos6507]

"Ecoterrorism" is obsolete.

There is simply no group of vandals or arsonists that could strike a blow to our economy or "way of life," that would in any meaningful way add up to the devastation that could be wrought by a banker.

Well, the credit crisis has been good for the environment. CO2 emissions may go down from all this reduction in economic activity.

[steam_cannon]

"Ecoterrorism" is obsolete.

There is simply no group of vandals or arsonists that could strike a blow to our economy or "way of life," that would in any meaningful way add up to the devastation that could be wrought by a banker.

Yeah +1 to seldom_seen

[Graeme]

I think the following article sheds quite a bit of light on this issue. It appears that we should not be too concerned about "ecoterrorist" acts.

In the fall of 2001, the anthrax attacks in the United States that targeted politicians and journalists caused considerable panic but did not lead to many deaths. Five people were killed.

The alleged author of that attack, Bruce E. Ivins, was one of the leading biological weapons researchers in the United States. Even this brilliant scientist could only "weaponize" anthrax to the point that it killed a handful of people. Imagine then how difficult it would be for the average terrorist, or even the above-average terrorist, to replicate such efforts.

There is a semantic problem in any discussion of WMDs because the ominous term ''Weapons of Mass Destruction'' is something of a misnomer. In the popular imagination, chemical, biological and nuclear devices are all weapons of mass destruction. In fact, there is only one weapon of mass destruction that can kill tens or hundreds of thousands and that is a nuclear device.

So the real question is: Can terrorists deploy nuclear weapons any time in the next five years or even further in the future? To do so, terrorists would have one of four options: to buy, steal, develop or be given a nuclear weapon.

But none of those scenarios are remotely realistic outside the world of Hollywood.

CNN

[CarlosFerreira]

If this is really what you want to discuss a good question might be,
will increased coal use, big wind turbine installations, worsening
global warming problems, all that... Cause more home grown
"eco-terrorists" to attack individuals and property in the name of
saving the environment? And the answer is sadly yes.

I think the environmental cause does not rub well with terrorism ideation. A terrorist does not act out of sheer conviction, I believe. Most of them act for an objective - recognition of their struggle against power, trying to achieve independence, control resources. And they are, I believe, recruited from people let down by their society, people with little or nothing to lose.

Now, let's look at the environmentalist movement: it's mainly composed of either scholar or middle-class people, the kind of people that have a lot to lose from doing something stupid. Sure, there's also the communities that try to start sustainable living, with permaculture and off-grid living, but they are a minority.

I can see eco-terrorism, for instance blowing up a power station, if people realise the consequences of climate change are greater than expected. But, I ask, why would they? Energy is precious to us.

Expect some protests and people throwing red paint to celebrities wearing furs, but that's about it.

[dorlomin]

'Terrorism' or deadly violence for political aims has fallen out of favour throughout the west over the past two decades. In the 60s\70s\80s there were numerous groups composed of westerners, normaly of middle class backgrounds, who used millitant and revolutionary means to persue there goal. In the US the black panthers and the weathermen are the two most prominent groups. In Europes groups like the Italian Red Briggade, German Badder Mienhoff\ RAF and in the UK\ Ireland groups such as IRA\ Sien Fienn and INLA used bombings kidnappings and murder to persue a political objective. This has died away as concern about global warming has increased so part of the reason is likely to be the 'fashion' or cultural change across the west.

But there is millitant and violent action taken in the animal rights spehere. Extreamists in Europe do threaten lives and hover rather near to going so far as bombings. Mass movements like the hunt saboteurs have gained political victories in the UK.

But on the wider issues of climate change it is very widely accepted that it requires the co-operation and the active participation of the masses. By and large in the west the masses are positive about enviromental issues. The job of the enviromental movement is to translate goodwill into action. Climate protests (and other ecological issues) tend to be non violent and aimed at emphisising the struggle of the little guy against monolithic corperatoins. They are media events.

One of the key differences between modern enviromentalism and the politics of the 60s and the 70s is the lack of the underlying philosophies of the likes of Fana and Satre, who beleived that the west was living in a 'false consiouness' and that through the actions of violence they could be brought out of this into the enlightmentent shared by the revolutionaries (an advancement on the old Marxist idea of vanguardism). The terrorism of that era was intentionaly violent too shock people out of there percieved false consiouness. That kind of thinking is horribly discredited today, even amoung the far left..... although I see variations of it being re-invented by the far right (witness Timothy McVeighs motivations) and offcourse it was absorbed with gusto with millitant Islamism (both Shia'a and Sunni).

However we do not live in a world deviod of militancy about enivromental issues. Enviromental issues (polution) is a huge factor in the Nigerian delta and it has shut down mines in Papua New Guinea. Non western enviromental terrorism is alive and well as in many peoples cases they believe they are fighting for many generations yet to come.