🚀 go-pugleaf

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1439-44C6573B-269@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
>
> From Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald ~ July 25, 2006
>
> Federal investigators in Oregon and across the country deserve credit
> for their persistence in running to ground the so-called ecoterrorists
> of "The Family."

A more sensical term might be "saboteurs". Rather than "terrorists". I mean,
seeing as no one was hurt in any of their silly "actions".

No one's "terrorized" when you let a bunch of minks free or light an
Escalade on fire on a dealer lot. They're "terrorized" when you blow up a
women's clinic or burn a cross. See the difference?

Curt

Curt wrote:
> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:1439-44C6573B-269@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
> >
> > From Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald ~ July 25, 2006
> >
> > Federal investigators in Oregon and across the country deserve credit
> > for their persistence in running to ground the so-called ecoterrorists
> > of "The Family."
>
> A more sensical term might be "saboteurs". Rather than "terrorists". I mean,
> seeing as no one was hurt in any of their silly "actions".
>
> No one's "terrorized" when you let a bunch of minks free or light an
> Escalade on fire on a dealer lot. They're "terrorized" when you blow up a
> women's clinic or burn a cross. See the difference?
>

By Curt's reasoning, the bombing of a "women's clinic" would not be
terrorism if the clinic was unoccupied at the time. And, a cross
burning would not be terrorism if the only people present were Klan
members and/or Neo-Nazis.

If the gas tank on the burning Escalade explodes, and kills an innocent
bystander or firefighter that is terrorism, no matter the intent of the
person who started the fire.

And, for the person who let free "a bunch of minks", do they have any
idea of the fate of the minks or any innocent person would may come in
contact with the minks.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:23:32 -0700, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:1439-44C6573B-269@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>> From Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald ~ July 25, 2006
>>
>> Federal investigators in Oregon and across the country deserve credit
>> for their persistence in running to ground the so-called ecoterrorists
>> of "The Family."
>
>A more sensical term might be "saboteurs". Rather than "terrorists". I mean,
>seeing as no one was hurt in any of their silly "actions".
>
>No one's "terrorized" when you let a bunch of minks free or light an
>Escalade on fire on a dealer lot. They're "terrorized" when you blow up a
>women's clinic or burn a cross. See the difference?

You're fucking INSANE!

Blowing up cars is by any and ALL definitions an act of terror!

You SO need to be out of circulation for a LOOOOONG time.

On 25 Jul 2006 20:27:20 -0700, "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Curt wrote:
>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1439-44C6573B-269@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
>> >
>> > From Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald ~ July 25, 2006
>> >
>> > Federal investigators in Oregon and across the country deserve credit
>> > for their persistence in running to ground the so-called ecoterrorists
>> > of "The Family."
>>
>> A more sensical term might be "saboteurs". Rather than "terrorists". I mean,
>> seeing as no one was hurt in any of their silly "actions".
>>
>> No one's "terrorized" when you let a bunch of minks free or light an
>> Escalade on fire on a dealer lot. They're "terrorized" when you blow up a
>> women's clinic or burn a cross. See the difference?
>>
>
>By Curt's reasoning, the bombing of a "women's clinic" would not be
>terrorism if the clinic was unoccupied at the time. And, a cross
>burning would not be terrorism if the only people present were Klan
>members and/or Neo-Nazis.
>
>If the gas tank on the burning Escalade explodes, and kills an innocent
>bystander or firefighter that is terrorism, no matter the intent of the
>person who started the fire.
>
>And, for the person who let free "a bunch of minks", do they have any
>idea of the fate of the minks or any innocent person would may come in
>contact with the minks.


Or their impact on the indigenous flora and fauna in the ecosystem?

Curt has classified himself as a world class bonehead apologist for
terror.

I knew the guy was a dumbass, but I'm shicked to see he's an
eco-terrorist too!

>From Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) ~ July 26, 2006

Accused Earth Liberation Front arsonist Tre Arrow hopes at least 10
donors will contribute $100,000 apiece for his bail from a Canadian
jail. Arrow says in a July 23 email to supporters that he plans to
propose the $1 million bail idea to the British Columbia Court of
Appeal in September or October. Arrow also says in the email he
dictated over the phone that he "will agree to any condition" to
convince the government he won't flee. Donors wouldn't have to hand
over the money but must be willing to show they have the equity, in
case it's needed. Arrested in Victoria in March 2004, Arrow is in the
Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre while he fights
extradition to Oregon to stand trial in connection with a pair of
arsons five years ago.

---------------------------------------------------

I wonder if Portland businessman and former ELF spokesman Craig
Rosebraugh will put up a $100,000?

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message 
news:1153931234.005174.129260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >From Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) ~ July 26, 2006
>
> Accused Earth Liberation Front arsonist Tre Arrow hopes at least 10
> donors will contribute $100,000 apiece for his bail from a Canadian
> jail.

Most environmentalists don't hang on to that kind of money or have it to 
throw around.

I figured after 9/11 the whole "ecoterrorism" paranoia would die down.  You 
can't terrorize a bulldozer or some other piece of logging equipment, and 
eco"terrorists" do not kill people and very few believe in violence against 
other people.  So calling them "terrorists" is Limbaughesque propaganda.

Arrow's an accused arsonist.  Osama bin Laden is a terrorist.

But, even if there are eco types out there with that kind of money--say, 
Nader--giving it to Arrow would be a bad investment because he's likely to 
skip bail or something.  I mean, the dude got popped for shoplifting a 
friggin' pair of boltcutters while he was hiding from the FBI.  Not exactly 
the kind of guy you lend a hundred grand.

> I wonder if Portland businessman and former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh 
> will put up a $100,000?

He'd be one to do it, but I doubt he has it. The ELF is idealistically cool, 
and nondestructive civil disobedience works, but stunts like arson are a 
setback to every step of progress the environmentalists make.

-c 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:15:12 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message 
>news:1153931234.005174.129260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >From Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) ~ July 26, 2006
>>
>> Accused Earth Liberation Front arsonist Tre Arrow hopes at least 10
>> donors will contribute $100,000 apiece for his bail from a Canadian
>> jail.
>
>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 figured after 9/11 the whole "ecoterrorism" paranoia would die down.  You 
>can't terrorize a bulldozer or some other piece of logging equipment, 

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

>and  eco"terrorists" do not kill people 

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

What kind of bullshit Monkey-wrencher are you?

>and very few believe in violence against 
>other people.  

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

>So calling them "terrorists" is Limbaughesque propaganda.

Tell ya what, I'll torch yer  Jeep off and you say that with a
straight face.

>Arrow's an accused arsonist.  Osama bin Laden is a terrorist.

So arson isn't terror?

Ever been the victim of arson?

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

Imagine what that might feel like if it were YOUR home?

>But, even if there are eco types out there with that kind of money--say, 
>Nader--giving it to Arrow would be a bad investment because he's likely to 
>skip bail or something.  I mean, the dude got popped for shoplifting a 
>friggin' pair of boltcutters while he was hiding from the FBI.  Not exactly 
>the kind of guy you lend a hundred grand.

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

>> I wonder if Portland businessman and former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh 
>> will put up a $100,000?
>
>He'd be one to do it, but I doubt he has it. The ELF is idealistically cool, 

What?!?!??!

Are you put of your fucking mind?!

>and nondestructive civil disobedience works, 

Like spiking trees so loggers get hurt?

>but stunts like arson are a 
>setback to every step of progress the environmentalists make.
>
>-c 
 
Curt doesn't think so.

"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 

"gatt" <LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote in message
news:UVOxg.6236$oa1.68@news02.roc.ny...

> 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.

I remember the weenies in the early eighties that turned into what we now
call the neo-cons. Same folks, different clothes.

>
> >>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.

No one was ever hurt by cutting a spiked tree, AFAIK.

Curt

"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message 
news:12cfl7vlo9ut899@corp.supernews.com...

> No one was ever hurt by cutting a spiked tree, AFAIK.

I've heard that too.  My father-in-law says he medevaced somebody one time 
(died in his arms in the helicopter) said to have hit a spike, but, no 
further word ever came of it.

Claiming to hit a tree spike is a good way for a logging operator to avoid 
insurance liability for some other cause.   Considering that we have logging 
companies in Oregon with felony conviction for price fixing and timber 
theft, and I know people hired by the logging industry to terrorize 
environmentalists up to and including with firearms, and we have places such 
as Warner Creek where the forest was deliberately torched so it could be 
logged at fire-sale auction prices...

...and we have said felon logging owners claiming that electric fence 
insulators that grew into the bark of young trees are "tree spikes", it's 
likely as not.  Anyway, Wikipedia has a brief entry on it that contains 
this:

---
In 1987, California mill worker George Alexander was seriously injured when 
the bandsaw he was operating was shattered by a tree spike. While both the 
County sheriff and Alexander's employers, Louisiana-Pacific, blamed 
environmentalists for the spiking, when Earth First! activist Judi Bari 
obtained the sheriff's files on the incident some years later, she 
discovered that one of the suspects for the spiking was Bill Ervin, a 50 
year old property-owner, unconnected with Earth First. While Ervin freely 
admitted spiking trees on his own land to prevent Louisiana-Pacific from 
taking timber on his side of the property line, he was never charged with 
spiking the tree that injured Alexande
--

Judi Bari died of cancer awhile back, but the her story is the stuff of 
movies like Silkwood.    Wikipedia:

"In 2002, a jury in their federal civil lawsuit exonerated Bari and Cherney 
by ordering four FBI agents and three Oakland Police officers to pay a total 
of $4.4 million to Cherney and to Bari's estate for violation of their First 
Amendment rights to freedom of speech and for false arrest and unlawful 
search and seizure."

-c 

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

>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.

Let's also not forget that loggers and sawmill workers also have to
cope with "farmer logs"--logs which have nails and such in them from
folks using trees as fence posts, as phone line poles, hanging camp
stuff from them, hanging crosspoles for hunting from 'em...

snip

>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.

Yep.  Classic "farmer log" scenario.

jrw

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.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:57:25 -0700, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

>No one was ever hurt by cutting a spiked tree,

You're a monumental dolt curt!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg764.cfm
Spiking trees with metal or ceramic spikes, the latter of which are
not detected by metal detectors, is common in the western US.
Incidents have also occurred in Canada and Australia. In May 1987, a
young California sawmill operator was  severely injured when a spike
shattered a band saw. A local Earth First! official blamed the sawmill
for jeopardizing its workers lives. Earth First! leader Foreman said
workers fearing injury could quit and that to him, the old growth
forest in North Idaho is a hell of a lot more important than Joe Six
pack. Loggers in California and Oregon since have been injured

In another incident involving personal injury, demonstrators, some
armed with knives and clubs, attacked Forest Service personnel
involved in herbicide spraying in the Siskiyou National Forest.

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/ag-forst/1997-October/006061.html
7/16/90. Gallatin County, Montana. Earth Firster Lyn Lee Georges
   Dessaux arrested on two counts of misdemeanor assault, one for
   multiple stabbings of Dan R. Jacobs of Kalispell with a ski pole,
the
   other for multiple stabbings of Hal Slemmer of Billings with a ski
   pole, in a Fund for Animals protest on March 17 to disrupt the
buffalo
   hunt near West Yellowstone. Dessaux became so violent that the
animal
   rights video camera operator documenting the scene stopped taping
and
   screamed at Dessaux to stop. Dessaux was found guilty on both
counts
   February 8, 1991 in a jury trial in Justice Court in Bozeman (Case
   Number CR90-0963). Justice of the Peace Scott Wyckman sentenced
   Dessaux to 6 months in Gallatin County Jail, suspended to 45 days.
   Dessaux was released after 28 days on condition he perform
community
   service with the Humane Society in lieu of paying court debts, but
the
   shelter rejected his help. Sentence in the case of The State of
   Montana v. Lyn Georges Dessaux, Case Number CR90-0963, February 8,
   1991. Shelter Rejects Bison Activist - Humane Society Wont Take His
   Help, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Saturday, March 9, 1991, by The
   Associated Press, p. 1A.

"ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message 
news:c8ofc2hpidbq7pk90ha1lu94ha0ufe6e1k@4ax.com...

>>I said environmentalist, not hypocrite.
>
> Sorry but they all claim to be in the "movement".

The more press "the movement" gets, the more those type of people will show 
up before whisking away to their mansions when it starts getting really 
weird. When you get down to the nitty gritty of an actual timber blockade, 
for example, it definately gets weird.

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

(subj:  arson = terrorism)   That's possible, but, it's still not terrorism 
any more than breaking into somebody's store and stealing stuff is.  I had 
an opportunity to tour a local timber trucking company owner's own, private 
B-25 bomber.  I was honored, but caught myself thinking Gee, the timber 
industry must really be hurting if log truck operators can own and fly 
fully-restored multimilliondollar World War II aircraft at $1000+ an hour to 
operate.  Now, if somebody -threatened- to torch his B-25 if he didn't stop 
logging, terrorism might apply.  I just don't credit the arsonists with that 
much intelligence.

> So you favor a lesser penalty phase for carefully premeditated arson not 
> intended to kill?
> Right...spin that one elsewhere.

That ain't gonna fly.  YOU put words in MY mouth and then accuse me of spin? 
Nope.   If they committed arson, they should be convicted of arson.   ANY 
arson puts firefighters at risk.  We do not charge arsonists with terrorism, 
we charge them with arson.

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

Agreed.  Even the Earth First!ers I met in Oregon, the direct-action 
treesitter types, have told me (since I tend to ask tough questions) that, 
if they knew who committed the arson that happened in Oregon in the late 
'90s, they'd turn them in.  If you want the public to gain your trust, and 
you want the timber industry to work with you, you can't tolerate criminal 
behavior regardless of the excuse.

>>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.)

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

By that definition, I'm a victim of terrorism.  At Warner Creek pro-logging 
types dumped thousands of roofing nails on the road when Time Magazine was 
coming up to do a press tour.  I had over 20 nails in each of my tires, and 
a photo somewhere of the typical Eugenus Treehuggerus helping an off-duty 
deputy who hit them.  When I reported it in Oakridge, the State Trooper who 
met me at the A&W said "Well, I can't go up there.  The BLM has ordered the 
Oregon State Police not to go up there under any circumstances.  There's 
nothing I can do. It must have been those environmentalists..."

> Be careful what you fess to in this medium.

The FBI already knows.  When I had my timber-rant site up, I'd check the 
logs and see hits from government IPs almost daily for about a year.
If you go to a timber protest as an activist, a logger, a journalist, or a 
politician, you'll see fratboy types walking along taking photographs of all 
the license plates.  You'd be amazed...we had a full-blown cold war going in 
the woods.  It was both thrilling and unbelievable to watch it play out. 
When the police raided Warner Creek, a Eugene R-G photographer who was 
outside the closure area had his camera confiscated. When the court ordered 
the police to give it back, they discovered that the film had been 
deliberately exposed and destroyed:
http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ew/issues/ew96sep.htm#forest  (note:  the 'women 
screaming' thing is likely true, but, to be fair, any time there were 
arrests or civil disobedience, women screamed.  It's annoying, and at least 
half the time they weren't being treated badly at all, making it impossible 
to know without being there.)

> 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.

You can believe it because it happened to me.  Similarly, they fired 
shotguns over the heads of activists, stole the clothes of two teenage girls 
who were swimming in a stream and then threw rocks at them to get them to 
come out of the water, etc.

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

We can agree to disagree but, my overall thought on the matter is that by 
and large, the type that commit these crimes aren't trying to coerce 
anybody.  The real work involves self-sacrifice, research and brains.  Most 
of these "ecoterrorists" are suburban brats who just want to lash out at the 
world and if you tell them as an environmentalist that they're wrong, they 
consider you part of the Man.  I don't extend them the respect of being 
farsighted enough to think in terms of coercion.

-c 

"ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message 
news:njpfc2hgiht69frro7j3dmn91ecib4bds6@4ax.com...

>>No one was ever hurt by cutting a spiked tree,
>
> You're a monumental dolt curt!
>
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg764.cfm

Also states:

"To prevent this, policy makers and particularly estab lishment 
environmental groups, must respond to the ecoterrorists by rebuilding the 
moral consensus against the use of violence. The environmental movement has 
a special responsibility. It must no longer tolerate, let alone encourage, 
the ecoteurs. In particular, environmental groups should publicize the fact 
that the ecoteurs violence sabotages legitimate environmental groups. "

The challenge has been met.  Revisit my comments in this thread about 
environmentalists turning their back on "ecoteurs"

The problem with anarchic entities such as Earth First! and the ALF and ELF 
is, they have no membership, no roster, no officers, no official leaders and 
so they have no rules or anybody to enforce the rules.  Anybody hotheaded 
dumbass can get fired up about something, burn up a BLM truck or a 
development, spray EARTH FIRST! on it and tell their bodies they're saving 
the world or some shit.  Naturally, folks look at the graffiti and assume it 
was perpetrated and organized by a collective of people or assume that, say, 
"Earth First! did it."     If the Animal Liberation Front is getting all the 
media attention, "they" will get all the loonies, and occasionally they'll 
even get counterintel types who will deliberately make problems to HURT the 
cause.

Those nonorganizations were a neat counterculture experiment but their lack 
of organization is their own weakness because they're totally vulnerable to 
misuse.  It's further complicated by things like "the Earth First! movement 
officially neither advocates nor condemns monkeywrenching" because there's 
no 'official' to be 'officially' and, as such, it's impossible for anybody 
to "officially" advocate or condemn anything. But the authors of the EF 
Journal (which is not 'officially' authoritative for Earth First! movement 
except that they bothered to make a website) don't really explain that to 
the casual reader.

-c
 

"gatt" <LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote in message
news:rySxg.6457$Oh1.5127@news01.roc.ny...

> Those nonorganizations were a neat counterculture experiment but their
lack
> of organization is their own weakness because they're totally vulnerable
to
> misuse.  It's further complicated by things like "the Earth First!
movement
> officially neither advocates nor condemns monkeywrenching" because there's
> no 'official' to be 'officially' and, as such, it's impossible for anybody
> to "officially" advocate or condemn anything. But the authors of the EF
> Journal (which is not 'officially' authoritative for Earth First! movement
> except that they bothered to make a website) don't really explain that to
> the casual reader.

Like the anti abortion groups, kinda. "Leaderless resistance" and all..

Curt

"gatt" <LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote in message
news:rySxg.6457$Oh1.5127@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message
> news:njpfc2hgiht69frro7j3dmn91ecib4bds6@4ax.com...
>
> >>No one was ever hurt by cutting a spiked tree,
> >
> > You're a monumental dolt curt!
> >
> > http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg764.cfm

Tell me Chris, is there any reason to bother to follow this link? I mean, it
was posted by Spammy and.. well.. I killfiled her months ago..

Curt

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:46:03 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:

>Let's also not forget that loggers and sawmill workers also have to
>cope with "farmer logs"--logs which have nails and such in them from
>folks using trees as fence posts, as phone line poles, hanging camp
>stuff from them, hanging crosspoles for hunting from 'em...

Let's point to an ambivalent former use as the moral equivalent of
terrorist spiking?!?!?!?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:37:03 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:

>
>"ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message 
>news:c8ofc2hpidbq7pk90ha1lu94ha0ufe6e1k@4ax.com...
>
>>>I said environmentalist, not hypocrite.
>>
>> Sorry but they all claim to be in the "movement".
>
>The more press "the movement" gets, the more those type of people will show 
>up before whisking away to their mansions when it starts getting really 
>weird. When you get down to the nitty gritty of an actual timber blockade, 
>for example, it definately gets weird.

No doubt, but they will be the front money.

>> If you're an investor or owner, you're hurt, afraid, terrorized.
>
>(subj:  arson = terrorism)   That's possible, but, it's still not terrorism 
>any more than breaking into somebody's store and stealing stuff is.

Yes it is, mere theft is not done with intent to coerce a behavior, is
it?


> I had 
>an opportunity to tour a local timber trucking company owner's own, private 
>B-25 bomber.  I was honored, but caught myself thinking Gee, the timber 
>industry must really be hurting if log truck operators can own and fly 
>fully-restored multimilliondollar World War II aircraft at $1000+ an hour to 
>operate.  Now, if somebody -threatened- to torch his B-25 if he didn't stop 
>logging, terrorism might apply.  I just don't credit the arsonists with that 
>much intelligence.

I could post page upon page of their similar acts for you.

>> So you favor a lesser penalty phase for carefully premeditated arson not 
>> intended to kill?
>> Right...spin that one elsewhere.
>
>That ain't gonna fly.  YOU put words in MY mouth and then accuse me of spin? 
>Nope.   If they committed arson, they should be convicted of arson.   ANY 
>arson puts firefighters at risk.  We do not charge arsonists with terrorism, 
>we charge them with arson.

And the sentencing takes into account????

>> You should read about them, from their suicided out leader and the rick 
>> shop meeting in Sedona to the Vail job - all classic haters.
>
>Agreed.  Even the Earth First!ers I met in Oregon, the direct-action 
>treesitter types, have told me (since I tend to ask tough questions) that, 
>if they knew who committed the arson that happened in Oregon in the late 
>'90s, they'd turn them in.  If you want the public to gain your trust, and 
>you want the timber industry to work with you, you can't tolerate criminal 
>behavior regardless of the excuse.

Fact.

>>>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.)
>
>>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism : the systematic use of terror 
>>especially as a means of coercion
>
>By that definition, I'm a victim of terrorism.  At Warner Creek pro-logging 
>types dumped thousands of roofing nails on the road when Time Magazine was 
>coming up to do a press tour.  I had over 20 nails in each of my tires, and 
>a photo somewhere of the typical Eugenus Treehuggerus helping an off-duty 
>deputy who hit them.  When I reported it in Oakridge, the State Trooper who 
>met me at the A&W said "Well, I can't go up there.  The BLM has ordered the 
>Oregon State Police not to go up there under any circumstances.  There's 
>nothing I can do. It must have been those environmentalists..."

You were the object of a coercive act, regardless of the side in
question.

>> Be careful what you fess to in this medium.
>
>The FBI already knows.  When I had my timber-rant site up, I'd check the 
>logs and see hits from government IPs almost daily for about a year.
>If you go to a timber protest as an activist, a logger, a journalist, or a 
>politician, you'll see fratboy types walking along taking photographs of all 
>the license plates.  You'd be amazed...we had a full-blown cold war going in 
>the woods.  It was both thrilling and unbelievable to watch it play out. 
>When the police raided Warner Creek, a Eugene R-G photographer who was 
>outside the closure area had his camera confiscated. When the court ordered 
>the police to give it back, they discovered that the film had been 
>deliberately exposed and destroyed:
>http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ew/issues/ew96sep.htm#forest  (note:  the 'women 
>screaming' thing is likely true, but, to be fair, any time there were 
>arrests or civil disobedience, women screamed.  It's annoying, and at least 
>half the time they weren't being treated badly at all, making it impossible 
>to know without being there.)

I've seen that happen enough to know you're spot on, women use what
they have, and not at all fairly, as if that's news...

>> 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.
>
>You can believe it because it happened to me.  Similarly, they fired 
>shotguns over the heads of activists, stole the clothes of two teenage girls 
>who were swimming in a stream and then threw rocks at them to get them to 
>come out of the water, etc.

Regardless of what you claim, that was coercion and thus terrorism.

As a journalist you have to side with the dictionary definition.

As a citizen we must agree on the federal definition:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
The FBI divides the terrorist threat facing the United States into two
broad categories, international and domestic. International terrorism
involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or
that would be a criminal violation if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States or any state. Acts of international
terrorism are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,
influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a
government. These acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the
means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended
to intimidate, or the locale in which perpetrators operate.

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence
by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the
United States (or its territories) without foreign direction,
committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives.

During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the
nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism
overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist
threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest
extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and
the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist
threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is
protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly.
Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these
groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the
ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United
States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million
dollars.

Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and
left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to
resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political
change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of
politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including
the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered
important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of
animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other
movements. Some special interest extremists -- most notably within the
animal rights and environmental movements -- have turned increasingly
toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their
causes.

Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation
group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and
attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of
"eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines
eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal
nature against innocent victims or property by an
environmentally-oriented, subnational group for
environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the
target, often of a symbolic nature.

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of
the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the
destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy
discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal
rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally
adhered to this mandate. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the
mid-1970s, is a loosely organized movement committed to ending the
abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF
began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of
the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging
in "direct action" against companies or individuals who utilize
animals for research or economic gain. "Direct action" generally
occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to
destroy the victims' company operations. The ALF activists have
engaged in a steadily growing campaign of illegal activity against fur
companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories.

Estimates of damage and destruction in the United States claimed by
the ALF during the past ten years, as compiled by national
organizations such as the Fur Commission and the National Association
for Biomedical Research (NABR), put the fur industry and medical
research losses at more than 45 million dollars. The ALF is considered
a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and
political change through the use of force and violence.

Disaffected environmentalists, in 1980, formed a radical group called
"Earth First!" and engaged in a series of protests and civil
disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced "tree
spiking" (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort
to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992, the ELF was
founded in Brighton, England, by Earth First! members who refused to
abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream
Earth First!. In 1993, the ELF was listed for the first time along
with the ALF in a communique declaring solidarity in actions between
the two groups. This unity continues today with a crossover of
leadership and membership. It is not uncommon for the ALF and the ELF
to post joint declarations of responsibility for criminal actions on
their web-sites. In 1994, founders of the San Francisco branch of
Earth First! published in The Earth First! Journal a recommendation
that Earth First! mainstream itself in the United States, leaving
criminal acts other than unlawful protests to the ELF.

The ELF advocates "monkeywrenching," a euphemism for acts of sabotage
and property destruction against industries and other entities
perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. "Monkeywrenching"
includes tree spiking, arson, sabotage of logging or construction
equipment, and other types of property destruction. Speeches given by
Jonathan Paul and Craig Rosebraugh at the 1998 National Animal Rights
Conference held at the University of Oregon, promoted the unity of
both the ELF and the ALF movements. The ELF posted information on the
ALF website until it began its own website in January 2001, and is
listed in the same underground activist publications as the ALF.

The most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson. The ALF/ELF
members consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with
crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are
often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF
websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity
surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to
engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential
targets, including the review of industry/trade publications,
photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting
details about potential targets on the internet.

The ALF and the ELF have jointly claimed credit for several raids
including a November 1997 attack of the Bureau of Land Management wild
horse corrals near Burns, Oregon, where arson destroyed the entire
complex resulting in damages in excess of four hundred and fifty
thousand dollars and the June 1998 arson attack of a U.S. Department
of Agriculture Animal Damage Control Building near Olympia,
Washington, in which damages exceeded two million dollars. The ELF
claimed sole credit for the October 1998, arson of a Vail, Colorado,
ski facility in which four ski lifts, a restaurant, a picnic facility
and a utility building were destroyed. Damage exceeded $12 million. On
12/27/1998, the ELF claimed responsibility for the arson at the U.S.
Forest Industries Office in Medford, Oregon, where damages exceeded
five hundred thousand dollars. Other arsons in Oregon, New York,
Washington, Michigan, and Indiana have been claimed by the ELF.
Recently, the ELF has also claimed attacks on genetically engineered
crops and trees. The ELF claims these attacks have totaled close to
$40 million in damages.

The name of a group called the Coalition to Save the Preserves (CSP),
surfaced in relation to a series of arsons that occurred in the
Phoenix, Arizona, area. These arsons targeted several new homes under
construction near the North Phoenix Mountain Preserves. No direct
connection was established between the CSP and ALF/ELF. However, the
stated goal of CSP to stop development of previously undeveloped
lands, is similar to that of the ELF. The property damage associated
with the arsons has been estimated to be in excess of $5 million.

The FBI has developed a strong response to the threats posed by
domestic and international terrorism. Between fiscal years 1993 and
2003, the number of Special Agents dedicated to the FBI's
counterterrorism programs grew by approximately 224 percent to 1,669
-- nearly 16 percent of all FBI Special Agents. In recent years, the
FBI has strengthened its counterterrorism program to enhance its
abilities to carry out these objectives.

Cooperation among law enforcement agencies at all levels represents an
important component of a comprehensive response to terrorism. This
cooperation assumes its most tangible operational form in the Joint
Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) that are established in 44 cities across
the nation. These task forces are particularly well-suited to
responding to terrorism because they combine the national and
international investigative resources of the FBI with the street-level
expertise of local law enforcement agencies. Given the success of the
JTTF concept, the FBI has established 15 new JTTFs since the end of
1999. By the end of 2003 the FBI plans to have established JTTFs in
each of its 56 field offices. By integrating the investigative
abilities of the FBI and local law enforcement agencies, these task
forces represent an effective response to the threats posed to U.S.
communities by domestic and international terrorists.

The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests
of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of eco-terrorism.
Several of these individuals have been successfully prosecuted.
Following the investigation of the Phoenix, Arizona, arsons noted
earlier, Mark Warren Sands was indicted and arrested on 6/14/2001. On
11/07/2001, Sands pleaded guilty to ten counts of extortion and using
fire in the commission of a federal felony.

In February 2001, teenagers Jared McIntyre, Matthew Rammelkamp, and
George Mashkow all pleaded guilty, as adults, to title 18 U.S.C.
844(i), Arson, and 844(n), Arson Conspiracy. These charges pertain to
a series of arsons and attempted arsons of new home construction sites
in Long Island, New York. An adult, Connor Cash, was also arrested on
February 15, 2001, and charged under the same federal statutes. Jared
McIntrye stated that these acts were committed in sympathy of the ELF
movement. The New York Joint Terrorism Task Force played a significant
role in the arrest and prosecution of these individuals.

On 1/23/2001, Frank Ambrose was arrested by officers of the Department
of Natural Resources with assistance from the Indianapolis JTTF, on a
local warrant out of Monroe County Circuit Court, Bloomington,
Indiana, charging Ambrose with timber spiking. Ambrose is suspected of
involvement in the spiking of approximately 150 trees in Indiana state
forests. The ELF claimed responsibility for these incidents.

On September 16, 1998, a federal grand jury in the Western District of
Wisconsin indicted Peter Young and Justin Samuel for Hobbs Act
violations as well as for animal enterprise terrorism. Samuel was
apprehended in Belgium, and was subsequently extradited to the United
States. On August 30, 2000, Samuel pleaded guilty to two counts of
animal enterprise terrorism and was sentenced on November 3, 2000, to
two years in prison, two years probation, and ordered to pay $364,106
in restitution. Samuel's prosecution arose out of his involvement in
mink releases in Wisconsin in 1997. This incident was claimed by the
ALF. The investigation and arrest of Justin Samuel were the result of
a joint effort by federal, state, and local agencies.

On April 20, 1997, Douglas Joshua Ellerman turned himself in and
admitted on videotape to purchasing, constructing, and transporting
five pipe bombs to the scene of the March 11, 1997, arson at the Fur
Breeders Agricultural co-op in Sandy, Utah. Ellerman also admitted
setting fire to the facility. Ellerman was indicted on June 19, 1997
on 16 counts, and eventually pleaded guilty to three. He was sentenced
to seven years in prison and restitution of approximately $750,000.
Though this incident was not officially claimed by ALF, Ellerman
indicated during an interview subsequent to his arrest that he was a
member of ALF. This incident was investigated jointly by the FBI and
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Rodney Adam Coronado was convicted for his role in the February 2,
1992, arson at an animal research laboratory on the campus of Michigan
State University. Damage estimates, according to public sources,
approached $200,000 and included the destruction of research records.
On July 3, 1995, Coronado pled guilty for his role in the arson and
was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison, three years probation,
and restitution of more than $2 million. This incident was claimed by
ALF. The FBI, ATF, and the Michigan State University police played a
significant role in the investigation, arrest, and prosecution.

Marc Leslie Davis, Margaret Katherine Millet, Marc Andre Baker, and
Ilse Washington Asplund were all members of the self-proclaimed "Evan
Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy" (EMETIC). EMETIC was
formed to engage in eco-terrorism against nuclear power plants and ski
resorts in the southwestern United States. In November 1987, the group
claimed responsibility for damage to a chairlift at the Fairfield Snow
Bowl Ski Resort near Flagstaff, Arizona. Davis, Millet, and Baker were
arrested in May 1989 on charges relating to the Fairfield Snow Bowl
incident and planned incidents at the Central Arizona Project and Palo
Verde nuclear generating stations in Arizona; the Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Facility in California; and the Rocky Flats Nuclear Facility
in Colorado. All pleaded guilty and were sentenced in September 1991.
Davis was sentenced to six years in federal prison, and restitution to
the Fairfield Snow Bowl Ski Resort in the amount of $19,821. Millet
was sentenced to three years in federal prison, and restitution to
Fairfield in the amount of $19,821. Baker was sentenced to one year in
federal prison, five months probation, a $5,000 fine, and 100 hours of
community service. Asplund was also charged and was sentenced to one
year in federal prison, five years probation, a $2,000 fine, and 100
hours of community service.

Currently, more than 26 FBI field offices have pending investigations
associated with ALF/ELF activities. Despite all of our efforts
(increased resources allocated, JTTFs, successful arrests and
prosecutions), law enforcement has a long way to go to adequately
address the problem of eco-terrorism. Groups such as the ALF and the
ELF present unique challenges. There is little if any hierarchal
structure to such entities. Eco-terrorists are unlike traditional
criminal enterprises which are often structured and organized.

The difficulty investigating such groups is demonstrated by the fact
that law enforcement has thus far been unable to effect the arrests of
anyone for some recent criminal activity directed at federal land
managers or their offices. However, there are several ongoing
investigations regarding such acts. Current investigations include the
10/14/2001 arson at the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro
Corral in Litchfield, California, the 7/20/2000 destruction of trees
and damage to vehicles at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in
Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and the 11/29/1997 arson at the Bureau of Land
Management Corral in Burns, Oregon.

Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the cooperation and
assistance rendered by the U.S. Forest Service in investigating
incidents of eco-terrorism. Specifically, I would like to recognize
the assistance that the Forest Service is providing with regard to the
ongoing investigation of the 7/20/2000 incident of vandalism and
destruction that occurred at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in
Rhinelander, Wisconsin.

The FBI and all of our federal, state, and local law enforcement
partners will continue to strive to address the difficult and unique
challenges posed by eco-terrorists. Despite the recent focus on
international terrorism, we remain fully cognizant of the full range
of threats that confront the United States.



>> Yes...the "hurt" part was just the terroristic COERCION!
>
>We can agree to disagree but, my overall thought on the matter is that by 
>and large, the type that commit these crimes aren't trying to coerce 
>anybody.  

Huh?

They want SUVs gone - that's why they fire bombed a LR dealer in Santa
Fe, NM  and spray painted their mordant eco-sloganeering.

>The real work involves self-sacrifice, research and brains.  Most 
>of these "ecoterrorists" are suburban brats who just want to lash out at the 
>world and if you tell them as an environmentalist that they're wrong, they 
>consider you part of the Man.  I don't extend them the respect of being 
>farsighted enough to think in terms of coercion.
>
>-c 

I recommend you read up on some of the stuff Foreman's bunch did in
the Lake Powell/ 4 Corners area, not quite Monkey Wrench Gang damnsite
detonation bad, but sugnificant structural damage to power lines
transmission towers and such.

Gatt, as some of us know you are a pilot and fly out of the Troutdale
(Oregon) Airport. Some of us also know of controversy concerning a
stand of trees in the flightpath of the Troutdale Airport.

An individual, who is against the removal of the trees, puts something
into the fuel tanks of airplanes at the Troutdale Airport. You take off
in your plane, and clear the runway. After a few minutes in the air,
you lose all power. You are unable to make it back to the airport and
you crash land your plane. There are no physical injuries to you or any
of your passengers, but your plane is damaged beyond repair. You are
also fully covered by insurance.

The individual, who put something into the fuel tanks of the airplanes,
intent and full belief was that what they did would keep the planes
from even being able to take off.

Gatt, knowing all this, would consider the individual's actions an "act
of terrorism" or mere "vandalism"? And, if you think it would be an
"act of terrorism", at what point did it become so, rather than mere
"vandalism"

"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message 
news:12cfu1edt29roba@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> > http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg764.cfm
>
> Tell me Chris, is there any reason to bother to follow this link?

Well...

" Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational 
institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote 
conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, 
limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a 
strong national defense."  http://www.heritage.org/about/

It's honest about its bias.  Having said that, I thought it was reasonably 
fair article for its day; "These ecoterrorists are a tiny, fringe group. 
They in no way represent Americas broad environmental movement."

But it's important to note that it was written in 1990, so some of it is 
outdated, ie:

"Yet, mainstream environmentalists and the press remain strangely silent 
about the atrocities committed by the ecoterrorists. By failing to police 
their own movement, and by failing to denounce loudly and openly the 
ecoterrorists, mainstream environmentalists risk bringing their entire 
movement into disrepute."

Times have changed quite a bit since then.  Lots of stuff about what 
happened in the '80s, though.

-c 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:26:22 -0700, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

>
>"gatt" <LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote in message
>news:rySxg.6457$Oh1.5127@news01.roc.ny...
>
>> Those nonorganizations were a neat counterculture experiment but their
>lack
>> of organization is their own weakness because they're totally vulnerable
>to
>> misuse.  It's further complicated by things like "the Earth First!
>movement
>> officially neither advocates nor condemns monkeywrenching" because there's
>> no 'official' to be 'officially' and, as such, it's impossible for anybody
>> to "officially" advocate or condemn anything. But the authors of the EF
>> Journal (which is not 'officially' authoritative for Earth First! movement
>> except that they bothered to make a website) don't really explain that to
>> the casual reader.
>
>Like the anti abortion groups, kinda. "Leaderless resistance" and all..
>
>Curt
>
Yer the one endorsing blowing stuff up, so...yeah...

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:27:24 -0700, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:

>
>"gatt" <LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote in message
>news:rySxg.6457$Oh1.5127@news01.roc.ny...
>>
>> "ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message
>> news:njpfc2hgiht69frro7j3dmn91ecib4bds6@4ax.com...
>>
>> >>No one was ever hurt by cutting a spiked tree,
>> >
>> > You're a monumental dolt curt!
>> >
>> > http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg764.cfm
>
>Tell me Chris, is there any reason to bother to follow this link? I mean, it
>was posted by Spammy and.. well.. I killfiled her months ago..
>
>Curt
>
You don't have to "follow" it dolt, the source data was quoted.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:16:05 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:

>
>"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message 
>news:12cfu1edt29roba@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> > http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg764.cfm
>>
>> Tell me Chris, is there any reason to bother to follow this link?
>
>Well...
>
>" Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational 
>institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote 
>conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, 
>limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a 
>strong national defense."  http://www.heritage.org/about/
>
>It's honest about its bias.  Having said that, I thought it was reasonably 
>fair article for its day; "These ecoterrorists are a tiny, fringe group. 
>They in no way represent Americas broad environmental movement."
>
>But it's important to note that it was written in 1990, so some of it is 
>outdated, ie:
>
>"Yet, mainstream environmentalists and the press remain strangely silent 
>about the atrocities committed by the ecoterrorists. By failing to police 
>their own movement, and by failing to denounce loudly and openly the 
>ecoterrorists, mainstream environmentalists risk bringing their entire 
>movement into disrepute."
>
>Times have changed quite a bit since then.  Lots of stuff about what 
>happened in the '80s, though.
>
>-c 
>
And some bizarre keying errors, wonder if this went up through early
OCR tech?

Paul J. Berg wrote:
> >From Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) ~ July 26, 2006
>
> Accused Earth Liberation Front arsonist Tre Arrow hopes at least 10
> donors will contribute $100,000 apiece for his bail from a Canadian
> jail. Arrow says in a July 23 email to supporters that he plans to
> propose the $1 million bail idea to the British Columbia Court of
> Appeal in September or October. Arrow also says in the email he
> dictated over the phone that he "will agree to any condition" to
> convince the government he won't flee. Donors wouldn't have to hand
> over the money but must be willing to show they have the equity, in
> case it's needed. Arrested in Victoria in March 2004, Arrow is in the
> Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre while he fights
> extradition to Oregon to stand trial in connection with a pair of
> arsons five years ago.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> I wonder if Portland businessman and former ELF spokesman Craig
> Rosebraugh will put up a $100,000?


I don't think Craig Rosebraugh is going to be chipping in $100,000, or
any other amount.  From what I have heard, Rosebraugh has taken steps
to insulate himself from potential civil lawsuits involving ELF.  He
has even gone as far as transferring the title to his home and
restaurant property to his parents.  He is now a renter.  Yeah, Right!

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:43:55 -0600, ef_hutterite
<efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:46:03 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
><jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Let's also not forget that loggers and sawmill workers also have to
>>cope with "farmer logs"--logs which have nails and such in them from
>>folks using trees as fence posts, as phone line poles, hanging camp
>>stuff from them, hanging crosspoles for hunting from 'em...
>
>Let's point to an ambivalent former use as the moral equivalent of
>terrorist spiking?!?!?!?

It's a well-known fact of life among REAL loggers, honey.

Especially anyone who logs private land, as my spouse did to raise
money for college.  You think he'd spike his own trees on purpose?

jrw

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message

> The individual, who put something into the fuel tanks of the airplanes,
> intent and full belief was that what they did would keep the planes
> from even being able to take off.
>
> Gatt, knowing all this, would consider the individual's actions an "act
> of terrorism" or mere "vandalism"? And, if you think it would be an
> "act of terrorism", at what point did it become so, rather than mere
> "vandalism"

Fascinating question.

Attempted murder, probably.  It would be vandalism if they sabotaged the 
plane such that it couldn't operate, it would be terrorism if they said "If 
you fly the airplane you will die, so don't fly" (I do consider tree-spiking 
terrorism, for example.)

What they were really trying to do was cause the plane to crash and/or kill 
the people onboard.  Regardless of the excuse, it's at the very least 
attempted murder, right? You could call it terrorism, but I don't know if 
the charges would stick.

It would sure be counterproductive, though.  The NTSB would almost certainly 
find and investigate the cause, and if the trees were part of the problem, I 
don't know for sure but I think the NTSB has the clout to win any suit 
against the entities trying to stop cutting.  Which is exactly what will 
happen -when- somebody hits the trees.  (Except I think they're more likely 
to hit them landing than taking off.)

-c
 

gatt wrote:
> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>
> > The individual, who put something into the fuel tanks of the airplanes,
> > intent and full belief was that what they did would keep the planes
> > from even being able to take off.
> >
> > Gatt, knowing all this, would consider the individual's actions an "act
> > of terrorism" or mere "vandalism"? And, if you think it would be an
> > "act of terrorism", at what point did it become so, rather than mere
> > "vandalism"
>
> Fascinating question.
>
> Attempted murder, probably.  It would be vandalism if they sabotaged the
> plane such that it couldn't operate, it would be terrorism if they said "If
> you fly the airplane you will die, so don't fly" (I do consider tree-spiking
> terrorism, for example.)
>
> What they were really trying to do was cause the plane to crash and/or kill
> the people onboard.  Regardless of the excuse, it's at the very least
> attempted murder, right? You could call it terrorism, but I don't know if
> the charges would stick.
>
> It would sure be counterproductive, though.  The NTSB would almost certainly
> find and investigate the cause, and if the trees were part of the problem, I
> don't know for sure but I think the NTSB has the clout to win any suit
> against the entities trying to stop cutting.  Which is exactly what will
> happen -when- somebody hits the trees.  (Except I think they're more likely
> to hit them landing than taking off.)
> 
> -c

gatt wrote:
> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>
> > The individual, who put something into the fuel tanks of the airplanes,
> > intent and full belief was that what they did would keep the planes
> > from even being able to take off.
> >
> > Gatt, knowing all this, would consider the individual's actions an "act
> > of terrorism" or mere "vandalism"? And, if you think it would be an
> > "act of terrorism", at what point did it become so, rather than mere
> > "vandalism"
>
> Fascinating question.
>
> Attempted murder, probably.  It would be vandalism if they sabotaged the
> plane such that it couldn't operate, it would be terrorism if they said "If
> you fly the airplane you will die, so don't fly" (I do consider tree-spiking
> terrorism, for example.)
>
> What they were really trying to do was cause the plane to crash and/or kill
> the people onboard.  Regardless of the excuse, it's at the very least
> attempted murder, right? You could call it terrorism, but I don't know if
> the charges would stick.
>
> It would sure be counterproductive, though.  The NTSB would almost certainly
> find and investigate the cause, and if the trees were part of the problem, I
> don't know for sure but I think the NTSB has the clout to win any suit
> against the entities trying to stop cutting.  Which is exactly what will
> happen -when- somebody hits the trees.  (Except I think they're more likely
> to hit them landing than taking off.)
>
> -c

Gatt, maybe I should have approach my question in a different way.

What I was trying to get at is: When judging whether something it is an
act of vandalism or an act of terrorism, do we make that judgement
based on the intent of the perpetrator or the action that resulted?

Also, when judging if the act is that of vandalism or terrorism, do we
need actual physical injuries to a victim to take place to make it an
act of terrorism? or would the mental anguish of a victim be enough to
raise the resulting action to that of an act of terrorism?

For the above questions, assume as fact: The number one intention of
the perpetrator was to draw attention to their political or social
cause.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:06:42 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:43:55 -0600, ef_hutterite
><efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:46:03 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>><jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Let's also not forget that loggers and sawmill workers also have to
>>>cope with "farmer logs"--logs which have nails and such in them from
>>>folks using trees as fence posts, as phone line poles, hanging camp
>>>stuff from them, hanging crosspoles for hunting from 'em...
>>
>>Let's point to an ambivalent former use as the moral equivalent of
>>terrorist spiking?!?!?!?
>
>It's a well-known fact of life among REAL loggers, honey.

And a non sequitur to protest spiking!

>Especially anyone who logs private land, as my spouse did to raise
>money for college.  You think he'd spike his own trees on purpose?

I think it's a non sequitur.

The subject is eco-terrorism.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:59:52 -0600, ef_hutterite
<efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:06:42 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
><jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:43:55 -0600, ef_hutterite
>><efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:46:03 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>>><jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Let's also not forget that loggers and sawmill workers also have to
>>>>cope with "farmer logs"--logs which have nails and such in them from
>>>>folks using trees as fence posts, as phone line poles, hanging camp
>>>>stuff from them, hanging crosspoles for hunting from 'em...
>>>
>>>Let's point to an ambivalent former use as the moral equivalent of
>>>terrorist spiking?!?!?!?
>>
>>It's a well-known fact of life among REAL loggers, honey.
>
>And a non sequitur to protest spiking!

Wake up and smell the cheesecake.  In some areas, how do you go about
telling the difference between deliberately planted spikes and farmer
logs?  You'd be surprised at how many of 'em show up on public land.

>>Especially anyone who logs private land, as my spouse did to raise
>>money for college.  You think he'd spike his own trees on purpose?
>
>I think it's a non sequitur.

I think you're trying to redefine reality to fit your ideology.

>The subject is eco-terrorism.

Like Gatt said (I have some similar experiences with the more straight
version of environmental activism in a different part of Oregon), the
proper terminology is "arson," "vandalism," and so on and so forth.

"Eco-terrorism" is hyperbole by logging company publicists trying to
drum up sympathy.  To get a nice little inside picture of how that
works, I refer you to a book by Jean Mater, "Citizens Involved: Handle
with Care! A Forest Industry Guide to Working with the Public,"
published in 1977, which is a classic on how to shape public opinion
on this topic.

Sorry, hon.  You can't BS someone who's been around and has read the
lit on both sides since the early 80s, and who's had connections to
the timber industry through friends and family.

jrw

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:46:31 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:59:52 -0600, ef_hutterite
><efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:06:42 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>><jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:43:55 -0600, ef_hutterite
>>><efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:46:03 -0700, Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>>>><jrw@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Let's also not forget that loggers and sawmill workers also have to
>>>>>cope with "farmer logs"--logs which have nails and such in them from
>>>>>folks using trees as fence posts, as phone line poles, hanging camp
>>>>>stuff from them, hanging crosspoles for hunting from 'em...
>>>>
>>>>Let's point to an ambivalent former use as the moral equivalent of
>>>>terrorist spiking?!?!?!?
>>>
>>>It's a well-known fact of life among REAL loggers, honey.
>>
>>And a non sequitur to protest spiking!
>
>Wake up and smell the cheesecake.  In some areas, how do you go about
>telling the difference between deliberately planted spikes and farmer
>logs?  You'd be surprised at how many of 'em show up on public land.

Well that's real easy dearie, the eco-terrorists like to BRAG on their
doings, that's how they COERCE people = TERROR!

Got it yet sweets?

>>>Especially anyone who logs private land, as my spouse did to raise
>>>money for college.  You think he'd spike his own trees on purpose?
>>
>>I think it's a non sequitur.
>
>I think you're trying to redefine reality to fit your ideology.

YOU are the one trying to minimize and apologize for DELIBERATELY
placed spikes, bitch!

You get no fucking quarter for being a lying propagandist!

>>The subject is eco-terrorism.
>
>Like Gatt said (I have some similar experiences with the more straight
>version of environmental activism in a different part of Oregon), the
>proper terminology is "arson," "vandalism," and so on and so forth.

I provided the proper dictionary and federal satute terminology, you
fucking lying whore.

Don't liek it too damned bad, your LIES are summarily DISMISSED!

>"Eco-terrorism" is hyperbole 

FUCK YOU LYING CUNT - it is a FACT!


http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

estimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief,
Counterterrorism Division, FBI
Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health
February 12, 2002
"The Threat of Eco-Terrorism"

Good morning Chairman McInnis, Vice-Chairman Peterson, Congressman
Inslee and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the
opportunity to appear before you and discuss the threat posed by
eco-terrorism, as well as the measures being taken by the FBI and our
law enforcement partners to address this threat.

The FBI divides the terrorist threat facing the United States into two
broad categories, international and domestic. International terrorism
involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or
that would be a criminal violation if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States or any state. Acts of international
terrorism are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,
influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a
government. These acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the
means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended
to intimidate, or the locale in which perpetrators operate.

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence
by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the
United States (or its territories) without foreign direction,
committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives.

During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the
nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism
overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist
threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest
extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and
the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist
threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is
protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly.
Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these
groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the
ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United
States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million
dollars.

Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and
left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to
resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political
change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of
politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including
the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered
important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of
animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other
movements. Some special interest extremists -- most notably within the
animal rights and environmental movements -- have turned increasingly
toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their
causes.

Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation
group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and
attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of
"eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines
eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal
nature against innocent victims or property by an
environmentally-oriented, subnational group for
environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the
target, often of a symbolic nature.

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of
the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the
destructive aspects of ALF's operations, its operational philosophy
discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." Animal
rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally
adhered to this mandate. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the
mid-1970s, is a loosely organized movement committed to ending the
abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF
began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of
the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging
in "direct action" against companies or individuals who utilize
animals for research or economic gain. "Direct action" generally
occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to
destroy the victims' company operations. The ALF activists have
engaged in a steadily growing campaign of illegal activity against fur
companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories.

Estimates of damage and destruction in the United States claimed by
the ALF during the past ten years, as compiled by national
organizations such as the Fur Commission and the National Association
for Biomedical Research (NABR), put the fur industry and medical
research losses at more than 45 million dollars. The ALF is considered
a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and
political change through the use of force and violence.

Disaffected environmentalists, in 1980, formed a radical group called
"Earth First!" and engaged in a series of protests and civil
disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced "tree
spiking" (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort
to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992, the ELF was
founded in Brighton, England, by Earth First! members who refused to
abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream
Earth First!. In 1993, the ELF was listed for the first time along
with the ALF in a communique declaring solidarity in actions between
the two groups. This unity continues today with a crossover of
leadership and membership. It is not uncommon for the ALF and the ELF
to post joint declarations of responsibility for criminal actions on
their web-sites. In 1994, founders of the San Francisco branch of
Earth First! published in The Earth First! Journal a recommendation
that Earth First! mainstream itself in the United States, leaving
criminal acts other than unlawful protests to the ELF.

The ELF advocates "monkeywrenching," a euphemism for acts of sabotage
and property destruction against industries and other entities
perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. "Monkeywrenching"
includes tree spiking, arson, sabotage of logging or construction
equipment, and other types of property destruction. Speeches given by
Jonathan Paul and Craig Rosebraugh at the 1998 National Animal Rights
Conference held at the University of Oregon, promoted the unity of
both the ELF and the ALF movements. The ELF posted information on the
ALF website until it began its own website in January 2001, and is
listed in the same underground activist publications as the ALF.

The most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson. The ALF/ELF
members consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with
crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are
often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF
websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity
surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to
engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential
targets, including the review of industry/trade publications,
photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting
details about potential targets on the internet.

The ALF and the ELF have jointly claimed credit for several raids
including a November 1997 attack of the Bureau of Land Management wild
horse corrals near Burns, Oregon, where arson destroyed the entire
complex resulting in damages in excess of four hundred and fifty
thousand dollars and the June 1998 arson attack of a U.S. Department
of Agriculture Animal Damage Control Building near Olympia,
Washington, in which damages exceeded two million dollars. The ELF
claimed sole credit for the October 1998, arson of a Vail, Colorado,
ski facility in which four ski lifts, a restaurant, a picnic facility
and a utility building were destroyed. Damage exceeded $12 million. On
12/27/1998, the ELF claimed responsibility for the arson at the U.S.
Forest Industries Office in Medford, Oregon, where damages exceeded
five hundred thousand dollars. Other arsons in Oregon, New York,
Washington, Michigan, and Indiana have been claimed by the ELF.
Recently, the ELF has also claimed attacks on genetically engineered
crops and trees. The ELF claims these attacks have totaled close to
$40 million in damages.

The name of a group called the Coalition to Save the Preserves (CSP),
surfaced in relation to a series of arsons that occurred in the
Phoenix, Arizona, area. These arsons targeted several new homes under
construction near the North Phoenix Mountain Preserves. No direct
connection was established between the CSP and ALF/ELF. However, the
stated goal of CSP to stop development of previously undeveloped
lands, is similar to that of the ELF. The property damage associated
with the arsons has been estimated to be in excess of $5 million.

The FBI has developed a strong response to the threats posed by
domestic and international terrorism. Between fiscal years 1993 and
2003, the number of Special Agents dedicated to the FBI's
counterterrorism programs grew by approximately 224 percent to 1,669
-- nearly 16 percent of all FBI Special Agents. In recent years, the
FBI has strengthened its counterterrorism program to enhance its
abilities to carry out these objectives.

Cooperation among law enforcement agencies at all levels represents an
important component of a comprehensive response to terrorism. This
cooperation assumes its most tangible operational form in the Joint
Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) that are established in 44 cities across
the nation. These task forces are particularly well-suited to
responding to terrorism because they combine the national and
international investigative resources of the FBI with the street-level
expertise of local law enforcement agencies. Given the success of the
JTTF concept, the FBI has established 15 new JTTFs since the end of
1999. By the end of 2003 the FBI plans to have established JTTFs in
each of its 56 field offices. By integrating the investigative
abilities of the FBI and local law enforcement agencies, these task
forces represent an effective response to the threats posed to U.S.
communities by domestic and international terrorists.

The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests
of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of eco-terrorism.
Several of these individuals have been successfully prosecuted.
Following the investigation of the Phoenix, Arizona, arsons noted
earlier, Mark Warren Sands was indicted and arrested on 6/14/2001. On
11/07/2001, Sands pleaded guilty to ten counts of extortion and using
fire in the commission of a federal felony.

In February 2001, teenagers Jared McIntyre, Matthew Rammelkamp, and
George Mashkow all pleaded guilty, as adults, to title 18 U.S.C.
844(i), Arson, and 844(n), Arson Conspiracy. These charges pertain to
a series of arsons and attempted arsons of new home construction sites
in Long Island, New York. An adult, Connor Cash, was also arrested on
February 15, 2001, and charged under the same federal statutes. Jared
McIntrye stated that these acts were committed in sympathy of the ELF
movement. The New York Joint Terrorism Task Force played a significant
role in the arrest and prosecution of these individuals.

On 1/23/2001, Frank Ambrose was arrested by officers of the Department
of Natural Resources with assistance from the Indianapolis JTTF, on a
local warrant out of Monroe County Circuit Court, Bloomington,
Indiana, charging Ambrose with timber spiking. Ambrose is suspected of
involvement in the spiking of approximately 150 trees in Indiana state
forests. The ELF claimed responsibility for these incidents.

On September 16, 1998, a federal grand jury in the Western District of
Wisconsin indicted Peter Young and Justin Samuel for Hobbs Act
violations as well as for animal enterprise terrorism. Samuel was
apprehended in Belgium, and was subsequently extradited to the United
States. On August 30, 2000, Samuel pleaded guilty to two counts of
animal enterprise terrorism and was sentenced on November 3, 2000, to
two years in prison, two years probation, and ordered to pay $364,106
in restitution. Samuel's prosecution arose out of his involvement in
mink releases in Wisconsin in 1997. This incident was claimed by the
ALF. The investigation and arrest of Justin Samuel were the result of
a joint effort by federal, state, and local agencies.

On April 20, 1997, Douglas Joshua Ellerman turned himself in and
admitted on videotape to purchasing, constructing, and transporting
five pipe bombs to the scene of the March 11, 1997, arson at the Fur
Breeders Agricultural co-op in Sandy, Utah. Ellerman also admitted
setting fire to the facility. Ellerman was indicted on June 19, 1997
on 16 counts, and eventually pleaded guilty to three. He was sentenced
to seven years in prison and restitution of approximately $750,000.
Though this incident was not officially claimed by ALF, Ellerman
indicated during an interview subsequent to his arrest that he was a
member of ALF. This incident was investigated jointly by the FBI and
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Rodney Adam Coronado was convicted for his role in the February 2,
1992, arson at an animal research laboratory on the campus of Michigan
State University. Damage estimates, according to public sources,
approached $200,000 and included the destruction of research records.
On July 3, 1995, Coronado pled guilty for his role in the arson and
was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison, three years probation,
and restitution of more than $2 million. This incident was claimed by
ALF. The FBI, ATF, and the Michigan State University police played a
significant role in the investigation, arrest, and prosecution.

Marc Leslie Davis, Margaret Katherine Millet, Marc Andre Baker, and
Ilse Washington Asplund were all members of the self-proclaimed "Evan
Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy" (EMETIC). EMETIC was
formed to engage in eco-terrorism against nuclear power plants and ski
resorts in the southwestern United States. In November 1987, the group
claimed responsibility for damage to a chairlift at the Fairfield Snow
Bowl Ski Resort near Flagstaff, Arizona. Davis, Millet, and Baker were
arrested in May 1989 on charges relating to the Fairfield Snow Bowl
incident and planned incidents at the Central Arizona Project and Palo
Verde nuclear generating stations in Arizona; the Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Facility in California; and the Rocky Flats Nuclear Facility
in Colorado. All pleaded guilty and were sentenced in September 1991.
Davis was sentenced to six years in federal prison, and restitution to
the Fairfield Snow Bowl Ski Resort in the amount of $19,821. Millet
was sentenced to three years in federal prison, and restitution to
Fairfield in the amount of $19,821. Baker was sentenced to one year in
federal prison, five months probation, a $5,000 fine, and 100 hours of
community service. Asplund was also charged and was sentenced to one
year in federal prison, five years probation, a $2,000 fine, and 100
hours of community service.

Currently, more than 26 FBI field offices have pending investigations
associated with ALF/ELF activities. Despite all of our efforts
(increased resources allocated, JTTFs, successful arrests and
prosecutions), law enforcement has a long way to go to adequately
address the problem of eco-terrorism. Groups such as the ALF and the
ELF present unique challenges. There is little if any hierarchal
structure to such entities. Eco-terrorists are unlike traditional
criminal enterprises which are often structured and organized.

The difficulty investigating such groups is demonstrated by the fact
that law enforcement has thus far been unable to effect the arrests of
anyone for some recent criminal activity directed at federal land
managers or their offices. However, there are several ongoing
investigations regarding such acts. Current investigations include the
10/14/2001 arson at the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro
Corral in Litchfield, California, the 7/20/2000 destruction of trees
and damage to vehicles at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in
Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and the 11/29/1997 arson at the Bureau of Land
Management Corral in Burns, Oregon.

Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the cooperation and
assistance rendered by the U.S. Forest Service in investigating
incidents of eco-terrorism. Specifically, I would like to recognize
the assistance that the Forest Service is providing with regard to the
ongoing investigation of the 7/20/2000 incident of vandalism and
destruction that occurred at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in
Rhinelander, Wisconsin.

The FBI and all of our federal, state, and local law enforcement
partners will continue to strive to address the difficult and unique
challenges posed by eco-terrorists. Despite the recent focus on
international terrorism, we remain fully cognizant of the full range
of threats that confront the United States.

Chairman McInnis and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared remarks. I would like to express appreciation for your
concentration on the issue of eco-terrorism and I look forward to
responding to any questions.

Paul J. Berg wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:1439-44C6573B-269@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
> > >
> > > From Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald ~ July 25, 2006
> > >
> > > Federal investigators in Oregon and across the country deserve credit
> > > for their persistence in running to ground the so-called ecoterrorists
> > > of "The Family."
> >
> > A more sensical term might be "saboteurs". Rather than "terrorists". I mean,
> > seeing as no one was hurt in any of their silly "actions".
> >
> > No one's "terrorized" when you let a bunch of minks free or light an
> > Escalade on fire on a dealer lot. They're "terrorized" when you blow up a
> > women's clinic or burn a cross. See the difference?
> >
>
> By Curt's reasoning, the bombing of a "women's clinic" would not be
> terrorism if the clinic was unoccupied at the time. And, a cross
> burning would not be terrorism if the only people present were Klan
> members and/or Neo-Nazis.
>
> If the gas tank on the burning Escalade explodes, and kills an innocent
> bystander or firefighter that is terrorism, no matter the intent of the
> person who started the fire.
>
> And, for the person who let free "a bunch of minks", do they have any
> idea of the fate of the minks or any innocent person would may come in
> contact with the minks.


Remember when the nutjobs released a bunch of minks and the minks
ripped each other  appart?  I guess they never realized the reason why
they are caged separately.

On 27 Jul 2006 21:33:10 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>Paul J. Berg wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
>> > "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1439-44C6573B-269@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
>> > >
>> > > From Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald ~ July 25, 2006
>> > >
>> > > Federal investigators in Oregon and across the country deserve credit
>> > > for their persistence in running to ground the so-called ecoterrorists
>> > > of "The Family."
>> >
>> > A more sensical term might be "saboteurs". Rather than "terrorists". I mean,
>> > seeing as no one was hurt in any of their silly "actions".
>> >
>> > No one's "terrorized" when you let a bunch of minks free or light an
>> > Escalade on fire on a dealer lot. They're "terrorized" when you blow up a
>> > women's clinic or burn a cross. See the difference?
>> >
>>
>> By Curt's reasoning, the bombing of a "women's clinic" would not be
>> terrorism if the clinic was unoccupied at the time. And, a cross
>> burning would not be terrorism if the only people present were Klan
>> members and/or Neo-Nazis.
>>
>> If the gas tank on the burning Escalade explodes, and kills an innocent
>> bystander or firefighter that is terrorism, no matter the intent of the
>> person who started the fire.
>>
>> And, for the person who let free "a bunch of minks", do they have any
>> idea of the fate of the minks or any innocent person would may come in
>> contact with the minks.
>
>
>Remember when the nutjobs released a bunch of minks and the minks
>ripped each other  appart?  I guess they never realized the reason why
>they are caged separately.
 
LOLOL!

Little bastards would have eaten Tre Arrow's nuts off.

gatt wrote:
> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:1153931234.005174.129260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >From Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) ~ July 26, 2006
> >
> > Accused Earth Liberation Front arsonist Tre Arrow hopes at least 10
> > donors will contribute $100,000 apiece for his bail from a Canadian
> > jail.
>
> Most environmentalists don't hang on to that kind of money or have it to
> throw around.
>
> I figured after 9/11 the whole "ecoterrorism" paranoia would die down.  You
> can't terrorize a bulldozer or some other piece of logging equipment, and
> eco"terrorists" do not kill people and very few believe in violence against
> other people.  So calling them "terrorists" is Limbaughesque propaganda.

There really isn't a good word for it.  It's a bit more than mischief,
not really terrorism (unless the intent is to hurt a logger), certainly
a felony, it crosses state lines, it's organized but calling it "eco
organized crime" has another connotation.

lein wrote:

-snip-

> Remember when the nutjobs released a bunch of minks and the minks
> ripped each other  appart?  I guess they never realized the reason why
> they are caged separately.

Urban legend.

Although a mass release of minks in England did, apparently, result in 
the minks preying on assorted native birds and domestic animals.

Peace and justice,

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message 
news:1154028381.286815.203280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> What I was trying to get at is: When judging whether something it is an
> act of vandalism or an act of terrorism, do we make that judgement
> based on the intent of the perpetrator or the action that resulted?

I'd say intent, otherwise you wouldn't be able to prosecute a failed 
terrorist attempt as terrorism.  If your intent is to cause terror by 
killing people, that's terrorism -and- at least attempted murder.  If your 
intent is to get even, get rid of somebody, etc, it's not terrorism.  Does 
that make sense?

>or would the mental anguish of a victim be enough to raise the resulting 
>action to that of an act of terrorism?

For the purposes of this discussion, say, destroying a unique or rare 
airplane as a means of protest (as opposed to a replaceable piece of 
equipment.)   Like, say somebody's pissed at logging in Tillamook so they 
treaten to or do torch the blimp hangar and everything in it.  Guess it 
depends on the definition of "terror."  The act would probably be equal to 
terrorism, but I'd think calling it "terrorism" wouldn't be appropriate. 
Some other term, perhaps of equal significance, would be better.  Aggravated 
arson or something like that.

-c 

"ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message 
news:l5hic2p4ipt10m4ikaqncve54goitiejm6@4ax.com...

>>It's a well-known fact of life among REAL loggers, honey.
>
> And a non sequitur to protest spiking!

In one sense.  In another, when the media or the logging industry propaganda 
passes it off like it was a deliberate spiking, it clouds up the truth of 
the issue.

One thing you see if you observe the local industry is that there is a LOT 
of almost mafiaesque corporate crime, particularly with the local operations 
(not so much with companies like Weyerhauser, at least that I've ever 
identified.)

But on the flipside, there are honest, above-board and conscienscious 
companies like Vanport Logging that are real example-setters and deserving 
of environmentalist support.  Which, by the way, they've gotten.  The only 
problem is, if you're a smalltime logging operator and you work too well 
with the treehuggers, you're likely to get blackballed by the rest of the 
industry in terms of things like timber auctions, which are generally 
invitation-only and likely as not fixed.

(For example, the USFS might decide to auction off a parcel of public land. 
The auction takes place at the Federal Building in Eugene, and only a select 
group of operations are invited to participate.  The public is prohibited 
from bidding, monitoring or even attending the auction and if you try, there 
is a group of ex-FBI types working as consultants that will harrass you, 
videotape you, threaten you, and, were you out in the woods and not in front 
of law enforcement, thump you.  Something going on in the auction?   We 
aren't allowed to know.)

-c 

> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Then again, there's absolutely nothing quite like the feeling of being
> four months pregnant, going in to testify at a field hearing, and
> realizing that half the people there would gladly hurt you if they
> could.  That was one of the scariest things I ever did--mainly because
> of the pregnancy.
> 
> jrw

Based on my experieince with WHorehauser (Weyerhauser) - I worked at the
Aberdeen, WA sawmill for 8 year- I wouldnt put a damn thing past them.
The hubris that is exuded from Tacoma, WA is beyond belief.

Joe

While we are debating terminology, vandalism or terrorism, maybe the
real questions we should be asking ourselves are:

Is the destruction of property a legitimate form of political protest?

Should the punishment be different for those destroying property as a
form of political protest versus those doing it for pleasure, revenge,
or financial gain?

Personally, I do not find the destruction of property as a legitimate
form of political protest.

In my lifetime, the greatest political and social movement in American
history took place. I speak of the civil rights movement. Yes, there
was some violence and destruction of property, but it was the peaceful
civil disobedience of Martin Luther King that led the nation to see the
injustice of segregation and discrimination.

Even with all the bitching that goes on here about governmental
inaction and lack of responsiveness to citizens' needs and wishes, we
still live in the United States of America, where individuals can still
through peaceful protest, and working through the political process,
change laws and public policies. There is no need to resort to
destruction of property, whether it be the abortion clinic bombers or
the "eco-terrorists" (using the term now,only because that the term
used in the news media).

IMHO, as far as punishment is concerned, those who destroy property as
a form of political or social protest should be, at the very least,
treated the same as those who do it for a financial gain.

Ending on a personal note. As a small child in the mid-1950's, I
remember being downtown with my siblings and mother. As small kids
always are, we were "HUNGRY". My mother took us to the Newberrys lunch
counter, where there was a "WHITES ONLY" sign. The mother's reaction
was "If they wont serve everyone, they wont serve us". Even though my
parents, nor I or my siblings, ever experienced discrimination in our
lifetimes, it was the one of the many lessons my mother taught us about
the injustice of it during our youth. And, I still remember well into
the 1970's, Newberrys lunch counters were still a hard place for
minorities to get service at.

Paul J. Berg wrote:

> While we are debating terminology, vandalism or terrorism, maybe the
> real questions we should be asking ourselves are:

> Is the destruction of property a legitimate form of political protest?

Well, no.  Or at least generally no. I seem to recall that individual 
draft cards remained technically the property of the US government but 
burning one's draft card as an act of political protest seems legitimate.

Ditto burning a flag if it's your flag.

> Should the punishment be different for those destroying property as a
> form of political protest versus those doing it for pleasure, revenge,
> or financial gain?

Punishment should fit the circumstances of the crime and motivation and 
intention are part of the crime. Political protest may call for a 
greater or lesser punishment depending on the preceived motivation and 
intention of the actor.

> Personally, I do not find the destruction of property as a legitimate
> form of political protest.

Well, one needs to distinguish legitimate morally from legitimate 
legally.  Legal justification is different from moral justification.

An act might be morally justified without being legally justified.

Extreme example: ripping up railroad tracks to stop the trains running 
to Auschwitz.

-snip-

> IMHO, as far as punishment is concerned, those who destroy property as
> a form of political or social protest should be, at the very least,
> treated the same as those who do it for a financial gain.

Nah. Generally financial gain is the most culpable of motivations and 
should be punished the most severely.

Peace and justice,

"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message 
news:1154125529.374508.199770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Is the destruction of property a legitimate form of political protest?

No.  In many cases, though, the perpetrator is so worked up, they feel that 
it's the necessary step after "political protest" has been gagged, ignored, 
or failed.

> Should the punishment be different for those destroying property as a
> form of political protest versus those doing it for pleasure, revenge,
> or financial gain?

Not really.  Vandalism is vandalism.  If you tag a truck or spraypaint ALF 
on it, it's still spraypaint on a truck.

> Yes, there was some violence and destruction of property, but it was the 
> peaceful
> civil disobedience of Martin Luther King that led the nation to see the
> injustice of segregation and discrimination.

Damned straight.  I wonder if it would have worked for abolition itself?

Snipped the bit about Newberry's.   A girl I dated who went to LSU --  
(previously a clueless white girl from Cottage Grove) -- discovered the back 
end of racism when she went to an off-campus function with a black guy.   A 
carload of black men rolled by, stopped in the road and threw something out 
the window at him yelling "Uncle Tom!"

Then, as a reported she was assigned to cover a Maya Angelou reading on 
campus.  When she was there trying to ask questions, somebody shoved her out 
of the way and told her she didn't belong there.  (ie, she was white.)

Another time, when I was visiting and we went to the zoo, some old boy 
hanging out waiting for it to open with us was delighted that we were from 
Oregon and liked Louisiana.  Had a great conversation until he whispered at 
us "You know, Baton Rouge was a great place until all these niggers moved 
in!"   I said something like "That was, what, 1700?" and he turned his back 
on us and walked away.

Not long after that, the Klan held a car wash in Gulfport.  Can only imagine 
lots of big-ass brothers in big-ass Caddies saying "Be sure to wash the 
windows.  Boy."

-c 

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:34:17 GMT, "gatt"
<LiveFromTheClocktower@gfy.com> wrote:

>
>"ef_hutterite" <efhutterite@montanan.org> wrote in message 
>news:l5hic2p4ipt10m4ikaqncve54goitiejm6@4ax.com...
>
>>>It's a well-known fact of life among REAL loggers, honey.
>>
>> And a non sequitur to protest spiking!
>
>In one sense.  In another, when the media or the logging industry propaganda 
>passes it off like it was a deliberate spiking, it clouds up the truth of 
>the issue.
>
>One thing you see if you observe the local industry is that there is a LOT 
>of almost mafiaesque corporate crime, particularly with the local operations 
>(not so much with companies like Weyerhauser, at least that I've ever 
>identified.)

Yes.  Absolutely.  What happens is that companies that have those
interesting backchannel connections with Weyerhauser are the ones that
lead in the corporate crime channels.  Back in the mid-80s, when I was
working with a friend on Northeastern Oregon logging issues, I did a
lot of trace-through research which focused on the interconnections
between Weyerhauser, Potlatch, Boise Payette/Boise Cascade, and a few
others.  Generally, Weyerhauser remained above the fray, while the
backchannel connections played the games.  My friend got a bit nervous
about loaded log trucks driving a bit aggressively with
none-too-secure bindings....

And then there was the time we got pictures of them (which "them" I've
now forgotten) hauling in a bulldozer into a designated Wilderness
Study Area.  Of course, that area ended up getting torpedoed and
burned off in a big summer fire, and there were plenty of rumors among
the locals, loggers and enviros alike, about corruption and
mishandling of the firefighting.  You know it's bad when both groups
think there's something rotten in the woods.

Or some of the shenagians that were passed on to me by a sympathetic
friend who was an insider for a while in the Yellow Ribbon Coalition.


>But on the flipside, there are honest, above-board and conscienscious 
>companies like Vanport Logging that are real example-setters and deserving 
>of environmentalist support.  Which, by the way, they've gotten.  The only 
>problem is, if you're a smalltime logging operator and you work too well 
>with the treehuggers, you're likely to get blackballed by the rest of the 
>industry in terms of things like timber auctions, which are generally 
>invitation-only and likely as not fixed.

Yes.  Then there's what happened to Pacific Lumber.

>
>(For example, the USFS might decide to auction off a parcel of public land. 
>The auction takes place at the Federal Building in Eugene, and only a select 
>group of operations are invited to participate.  The public is prohibited 
>from bidding, monitoring or even attending the auction and if you try, there 
>is a group of ex-FBI types working as consultants that will harrass you, 
>videotape you, threaten you, and, were you out in the woods and not in front 
>of law enforcement, thump you.  Something going on in the auction?   We 
>aren't allowed to know.)

Yep.

Then again, there's absolutely nothing quite like the feeling of being
four months pregnant, going in to testify at a field hearing, and
realizing that half the people there would gladly hurt you if they
could.  That was one of the scariest things I ever did--mainly because
of the pregnancy.

jrw

On 27 Jul 2006 21:48:34 -0700, "lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>
>gatt wrote:
>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:1153931234.005174.129260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > >From Willamette Week (Portland, Oregon) ~ July 26, 2006
>> >
>> > Accused Earth Liberation Front arsonist Tre Arrow hopes at least 10
>> > donors will contribute $100,000 apiece for his bail from a Canadian
>> > jail.
>>
>> Most environmentalists don't hang on to that kind of money or have it to
>> throw around.
>>
>> I figured after 9/11 the whole "ecoterrorism" paranoia would die down.  You
>> can't terrorize a bulldozer or some other piece of logging equipment, and
>> eco"terrorists" do not kill people and very few believe in violence against
>> other people.  So calling them "terrorists" is Limbaughesque propaganda.
>
>There really isn't a good word for it.  It's a bit more than mischief,
>not really terrorism (unless the intent is to hurt a logger), certainly
>a felony, it crosses state lines, it's organized but calling it "eco
>organized crime" has another connotation.

Good point.

jrw

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>
> > While we are debating terminology, vandalism or terrorism, maybe the
> > real questions we should be asking ourselves are:
>
> > Is the destruction of property a legitimate form of political protest?
>
> Well, no.  Or at least generally no. I seem to recall that individual
> draft cards remained technically the property of the US government but
> burning one's draft card as an act of political protest seems legitimate.
>
> Ditto burning a flag if it's your flag.


and burning a cigarette if it's your cigarette.

"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote in message 
news:1154146585.057436.30190@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> Paul J. Berg wrote:
>>
>> > While we are debating terminology, vandalism or terrorism, maybe the
>> > real questions we should be asking ourselves are:
>>
>> > Is the destruction of property a legitimate form of political protest?
>>
>> Well, no.  Or at least generally no. I seem to recall that individual
>> draft cards remained technically the property of the US government but
>> burning one's draft card as an act of political protest seems legitimate.
>>
>> Ditto burning a flag if it's your flag.
>
>
> and burning a cigarette if it's your cigarette.

Precedent, if unpleasant, does exist.

Try not paying your property taxes, then ask yourself what "property" means.

Jim