Comments on: Why Aren’t the EPA’s Most Wanted Fugitives Labeled “Eco-terrorists”?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:33:00 +0000

Will Potter: ‘Who do you think is the “eco-terrorist”: The tree sitter or Boise Cascade? The Earth Liberation Front or Monsanto? Tim DeChristopher or mining corporations? Earth First or General Motors?

We will never see the government use that term against people who pollute the environment, though. Why? Because environmental destruction doesn’t threaten political or corporate interests.’

ok so yeah this is a little late but i think the problem with the terminology is simpler than you’re making it out to be. i agree that the the term ‘terrorist’ has become something of a red herring in the last ten years and that it has been misused by some (who have political or economic agendas) to describe who are not actually terrorists. terrorism is a real thing, of course – it’s just that its meaning has become vague and its usage suspect.

the reason i think that environmental activists, animal rights activists, and so on are termed ‘eco-terrorists’ is because they supposedly commit acts of terror out of their concerns with matters pertaining to ecology. (i agree with you that they probably do not actually commit acts of terrorism, but of course one would have to first define what constitutes ‘terror’). anyway, we would likewise refer to Jihadist terrorists as ‘Islamic terrorists,’ or anarchist terrorists who plotted to kill the tsar in the late-19th century like Sergei Nechaev as ‘anarcho-terrorists.’

in each of these cases, the terrorism is committed out of an ideological system referred to in word that comes first (or before the hyphen). so to call the corporations you mention ‘eco-terrorists’ because they commit acts of terror against the ecosystem would be just as absurd as to call groups or people who commit acts of terror against Muslims ‘Islamic terrorists.’ or to call groups or people who commit acts of terror against anarchists ‘anarcho-terrorists.’ the first word does not refer to the OBJECT that’s being terrorized, but the belief system out of which the terrorism supposedly flows

i think that should clear things up a bit. hope i didn’t come off as a dick

By: Harry

Harry — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:45:00 +0000

greentangle, and what are those factory raised animals eating? Grains that are destroying an ecosystem with their growth. If you’re not a moron, it’s CLEARLY better for myriad reasons for a mink to be eating local wild animals than imported grain-fattened factory farm animals.

By: greentangle

greentangle — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:43:17 +0000

You guess wrong, cubestar, I’ve been a near vegan for many years. I agree about the subdivisions (and roads–one of the many reasons I’ve never owned a car) being worse, but I don’t think saying that someone else is killing more animals makes it ok for you to kill a smaller number when it suits your cause.

By: cubestar

cubestar — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:18:16 +0000

Please, one new subdivision does way more damage – and then tips the scales of a local eco system toward creatures that ‘fit’ in with the new environment. Do you think the human race ever cared about introduction or destruction of species?

And while you are analyzing personal ecological impact, us “AR folks” don’t consume or propagate the production of what is destroying the world at a critical rate, but I’m guessing that you do (local cheeseburgers?).

P.S. – I love how joe practically admitted to being “TerrorTracker”. So you’re a vegetarian joe? Hmmmmm…

By: greentangle

greentangle — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:49:43 +0000

Harry, caged mink are not eating wild animals, but some domestically raised creatures or products from a factory not an ecosystem. The fact that primarily urban AR folks don’t recognize the difference between the value/worth (and I’m not talking $) of domestic (a man-made product) and wild animals, and have little understanding of how nature works, is their biggest shortcoming. Since most released mink will die or be recaptured, and those who don’t will kill other animals, the far more appropriate action for fur farm attackers to take would be to accept the responsibility and consequences of their actions and euthanize the mink.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:51:36 +0000

Harry, opinions are like guys named Harry…I mean assholes, everyone has one, yours just happens to be wrong.

By: Harry

Harry — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 06:40:37 +0000

Joe, you are a moron and it’s no wonder that organizations like Fish and Game and USFS are so fucking destructive, corrupt and inept. They contain people who think with the level of astuteness that you do.

By: Harry

Harry — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 06:38:52 +0000

greentangle, you DO realize that mink in cages DO still have to eat, right? Which means they’re eating plants and animals (probably just animals) from some other ecosystem, meaning that ecosystem is getting displaced. So you can either leave them in cages and allow them to be forced to eat (probably unnatural for mink) shit food imported from somewhere else, or get them the fuck out of the cages, financially/psychologically harm the “farmer,” and allow them to seek food in the local ecosystem. Either way animals are getting eaten. And obviously it’s better that mink eat local animals.

By: greentangle

greentangle — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:12:36 +0000

Here’s where I part ways with AR folks. I would love to shut down every fur farm and think people who operate them are scum. But releasing hundreds of mink into an area IS irresponsible, ignorant, and causes the death of many animals. If an ecosystem were able to support hundreds of mink without them throwing off the system and other species, they’d already be there–that’s how the natural world works.

By: Bluedyeno1

Bluedyeno1 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:29:37 +0000

So much comedy exists within this;

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Eco-Terrorists-Threaten-Proposed-Power-Plant.html