🚀 go-pugleaf

"ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message 
news:erbfc29ofbo45osbi42c9t5ql2ano5li5v@4ax.com...
>>Most environmentalists don't hang on to that kind of money or have it to
>>throw around.
>
> Really?
>
> Streisand, DiCaprio, and Al Bore don't have money???

I said environmentalist, not hypocrite.  DiCaprio drives a geeky electric 
golfcard around Hollywood, so I have to give him credit for that, and Al 
Gore certainly isn't going to donate money to get a country-jumping arson 
suspect out of the pokey.

Besides, there are a million better things to do for the environment with a 
million dollars than waste it on bail for a captured fugitive, and I'm 
fairly certain the entire free world recognizes it.   Caveat:  There's 
always Berkeley, I suppose....

> Do tell, sand in the crankcase of a $50K + Cat isn't terror eh?

No.  It's sabotage.  It's vandalism.  It's destruction of property.  It's an 
insurance claim for the logging operation.  Nobody was hurt, nobody was 
afraid, nobody was killed, no threats of death were made, ergo, no 
terrorism. Might as well call 'em  Cat murderers.

> When Chelsea Gerlach and her  "true belieevrs" burned the 2 Elk Lodge
> in Vail they easily could have killed people, from EMTs to firemen.

That wasn't their deliberate attempt.  They were just stupid.  Had 
they -deliberately- killed or attempted to kill people, that would have been 
terrorism.   Otherwise, it's arson.  If they wanted to kill people by arson, 
they easily could have.  They chose not to.  The folks that risked their 
lives putting out the fire could have said "This is dangerous. Let it burn 
and rebuild it."   The arsonists were probably narrowminded, short-sighted 
self-righteous anarchist types and it likely never even occured to them that 
they were putting firefighter's lives at risk.

A terrorist, on the other hand, would have waited for the firefighters to 
arrive before setting off bombs to deliberately kill people and to 
deliberately cause people to hesitate to extinguish those types of fires. 
That's terrorism.  "If you don't do what we want, we'll kill people."

> What kind of bullshit Monkey-wrencher are you?

An educated, experienced and damned clever one.  (Although I've never 
vandalized anything.  My specialty was gathering intelligence about illegal 
operation, identifying infiltrators, and for my own purposes watching to see 
where the educated environmentalism ended and the post-hippie rhetoric 
began.)

> So its not violent to burn up SUVs on some person's car lot???

No. It's arson.

>>So calling them "terrorists" is Limbaughesque propaganda.
>
> Tell ya what, I'll torch yer  Jeep off and you say that with a
> straight face.

I might call you a dead man, but I'd not call you a terrorist.  My jeep 
known no fear, and unlike a human life, if you torch it, I'll just file and 
insurance claim and buy a new one.   If you put a bomb in my jeep such that 
it blew up when I started it to scare others, that would be terrorism.

> Ever seen what an almost finished home looks like after it gets burned to 
> the ground?

Does it feel fear?

> Funny, if you wanted eco-mayhem he's precisely the type.

Nobody wants eco-mayhem.  They want people to listen and to think.  Torching 
stuff doesn't do that, which is why all but the radical environmentalists 
turn their back on it.  Also, I don't happen to think the arsonists are 
environmentalists.  They're angry young people who attached themselves to a 
cause as an excuse to lash out at established society.  For example, I met a 
bunch of punk-ass Eugene street kids at a mission-specific blockade one time 
who had no knowledge of the mission, the politics or anything else.  They 
were basically just squatting. The type that, when people brought them food, 
asked for cigarettes and then bailed out at the first sign of trouble.

>>and nondestructive civil disobedience works,
>
> Like spiking trees so loggers get hurt?

That's destructive, is it not?  What about spiking trees so loggers get hurt 
is "nondestructive"?

BTW, they didn't spike trees so that loggers would get hurt.  They spiked 
trees to prevent loggers from cutting. Guess which industry tried to make 
sure nobody knew that. When tree-spiking occured--at least on the west 
coast--the culprits notified the logging operation not to cut there. It was 
up to the operation owners to pass the word on and prevent their folks from 
cutting, but, hey, nothing wins popular support like letting one of your 
logger lackeys bleed to death so you can see their crying family on TV.

I'm not saying tree spiking is right.  Never done it.  It rarely actually 
ever happened.  When it did, I'd call it terrorism because even though the 
intent was not to harm, the reality was, it was still a -threat- to harm. 
I've never met an activist that condoned violence against loggers.  I've 
met -people- who condoned it, but they weren't actual activists; basically, 
they talked big and hoped somebody else would do it for them.

From what I understand, the second, brief wave of spiking involved putting 
the spikes higher up the tree where loggers wouldn't hit them, but where 
sawmill blades would.   When it occured to these types that an exploding 
sawmill blade was as dangerous to workers as a tree spike was to a logger, 
that ended.

One thing to consider about tree spiking is the way the media is 
manipulated.  For example, one of the folks from the Freres Brothers logging 
company claimed they found tree spikes and it made news all over the 
Willamette Valley.  When it turned out that the "spikes" were actually just 
bits of an old electric fence insulator that had been carried up and into 
tree bark by a growing tree, the media apparently decided that was boring 
and didn't bother to pass on the word.  So a lot of people down there still 
think there was a porcelain "spike" found in a tree.

We can talk about this all day.  "I have detailed files."  -Terminator2
-c