To all readers both for and against the greens of which inhabit this
planet known as Earth.
When you review the arguements for and against the Green do gooders of the World anyone with any spark of common sense will see that there needs to be a balance, whilst I conceed that the balance can be and has been out of wack in the last few decades I also accept that sooner or later and I'd prefer sooner a government body or authority needs to be formed to rule upon applications put forward by either side and to therefore defuse any ugliness that may have occured because of indifference. Whilst it can be said that I do favor the "Wise Use" group with a fair percentage of there beliefs we must also accept that there will always be a difference of opinion put forward and that this difference should be taken seriously from all sides and a decision reached that will favor the party or parties with the most substancial evidence provided not just "hearsay" from some group who wants to use a lot of inuendo to release a lot of steam.
We, as humans have been given the right to think, act and recieve the consequences of our actions. Even though the situation around us can seem so very wrong or scewed if you will, it is only when we truthfully examine the evidence that we begin to see what is really going on and therefore act accordingly byway of strategies consisting of fact not fantasy.
Ron Arnold / Lecturer- TAFE Western Australia

I have thought about the term, "eco-terrorist" for a long time. I think back to the word,"ecosystem" or the biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment. These are systems that are supposed to run on their own with no outside involvement. The oceans, our earth, the universe just to name a few. We as people always seem to mess up others environments. To me the word, "eco" means more ecology or ecological than it does economic. To label "animal rights" people ecological or having interaction with people of their environment may be stretching the definition a bit. Their interaction comes from more of the interaction with people who control the interaction those people have with animals. But as far as I am concerned ecoterrorist is an oxymoron type word that I have yet to see in any dictionaries.

Will,

Can you post about the Earth First Roadshow event in DC? Please, please, please?

-Only

Will, I love your nerdiness. :)

@that dude: Economic terrorism? I think that fits perfectly. :D

The people who disagree with the violent AR/Environmental actions usually say it's because 'the ends don't justify the means.'
Then why the hell should the ends (medical research, fur coats, heart-stopping hamburgers...) justify the means (killing and torturing) towards animals? Why should the ends of living a gluttonously 'comfortable' lifestyle with prepackaged everything justify the means of making changes to our planet that future generations will suffer in?
That to me is terrorism.

Following the thread of definition #3, I read over a decade ago that the roots of the term, were in economic (eco) and terrorist. In fact few people dispute the prefix when it is used as "eco" - tage (economic & sabotage.) The term, marketing associated with it, political spin, and downright fear mongering by the FBI and similar agencies has continually hyped the third definition. Regardless of your personal beliefs on strategy or what tactics are moral or pragmatic, there is a certain lean by these agencies to want to use this term as an umbrella for anything they view as a staunch opposition to the wanton destruction of the environment. At the end of the day their actions often dilute the t-word itself. To call someone like Tim DeChristopher such a label (which I believe a state assemblymen did do) is foolish, because most discerning americans regardless of their personal beliefs can see a difference between a peaceful civil disruption and a more potentially violent form of direct action.

At the end of the day I feel that people will eventually stop caring about that word because it would have been so overused it wont carry the same weight it once did. Thus was the story for "communists." Calling someone a communist in the 50's & 60's was practically a prelude to a lynch mob, but today hipsters make fun of each other using the term to describe their fashion choices. It will be interesting what the powers that be think of next to blacklist people with.

I think all of the definitions are "appropriate". The first two are how I see "terrorism" to actually exist and the third is what would be terrorism if animal and environmental activists actually did those thigns, which they do not (except a few fringe people who threaten violence and even then, I can't trust those who report such things).

I find it funny though that those who are definitely and undeiably guilty of the first two forms of terrorism, who actually kill humans and other animals with their actions, are the ones protected from by the government from those who seek to end this terrorism.

Environmentalism, Animal Rights Activism, and Green Anarchy are the fighters of the real war on eco-Terrorism.

Then according to Charles Krauthammer draining the swamps of florida, louisiana, etc, damming the rivers and leveling the rockfaces of manhattan are eco-terrorism. I agree.

I'd also like to point out the FBI's definition includes the idea of "innocent" targets. Does that mean if you can prove in court the person is not innocent it's no longer terrorism?