🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:56:52 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:

>
>"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.  

Sorry but they all claim to be in the "movement".

>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....

Bailing this vermin would be an absurd waste, agreed.

>> 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.

If you're an investor or owner, you're hurt, afraid, terrorized.

Anyone who works with heavy equipment can tell you it is a sizable
investment initially and upkeep is steep.

>> 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.  

So you favor a lesser penalty phase for carefully premeditated arson
not intended to kill?

Right...spin that one elsewhere.

>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.

You should read about them, from their suicided out leader and the
rick shop meeting in Sedona to the Vail job - all classic haters.

>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."

I disagree, the definition I use is:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

And the burning of lodges, homes, condominiums is indeed an act of
environmental coercion, no other way to parse it.

>> 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.)

Be careful what you fess to in this medium.

>> So its not violent to burn up SUVs on some person's car lot???
>
>No. It's arson.

Oh no, it's violent and terroristic and endangering to law
enforcement.

>>>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.

Just an arsonist eh?

You wouldn't be a little terrorized if you knew it was done due to
some political agenda and could happen again? Why don't I believe
that.

> 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.

That's what can and often does happen, the gas tank can act like a
bomb.

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

It's owners do.

Recall the Tucson home-burner?

>> 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.

Ayup...

>>>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"?

The actual damage I suppose, if one grades things thusly.

>BTW, they didn't spike trees so that loggers would get hurt.  They spiked 
>trees to prevent loggers from cutting. 

Yes...the "hurt" part was just the terroristic COERCION!

>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 believe you.

>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.

I can't even think about that, those blades are immense.

>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 

Your research is valid, but the facts remain, eco terror is coercion.