Woman Suspected in Several Ecoterror Cases

[baldguy]

EUGENE, Ore. - A woman charged with damaging a transmission tower also is suspected in half a dozen other ecoterror crimes, including a firebombing at a Colorado ski resort, one of the costliest such crimes in the U.S.

Chelsea Gerlach was ordered held without bail after Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirk Engdahl made the allegations against her.

Federal public defender Craig Weinerman argued that the evidence against Gerlach was meager.

Gerlach, 28, was among six people arrested in five states last week on indictments alleging they set fires and damaged property between 1998 and 2001 in Oregon and Washington. The Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front took responsibility for most of the crimes.

more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap_on_re_us/ecoterrorism_arrests;_ylt=AguelupMxI365UxNp1T1VNes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

The word "terrorist" should be reserved for people who threaten human life and NOT used for people who merely threaten property. Bush is a terrorist. Ms Gerlach is not.

[yellowcanine]

1. Firebombing a ski resort doesn't threaten human life? Sorry but I am

not going to go along with defending someone who is that careless about whether or not someone gets hurt. The end does not justify the means.

On edit: Also this....
"Engdahl said she is suspected as well in a 1998 attempted arson at Bureau of Land Management wild horse corrals in Rock Springs, Wyo.; a 1999 the arson at a Boise Cascade office in Monmouth, Ore.; and a 2001 firebombing of a University of Washington horticultural research center in Seattle."

a horticultural research center? Still think it shouold not be called terrorism? Firebombing, even if it is "just property" is no joke. "Empty buildings" have a way of having people in them at odd hours, particularly research buildings at universities.

[baldguy]

2. Not many people ski in October.

When people aren't there, human life is not threatened.

[Kingshakabobo]

5. Never mind those fireman that have to fight the fire. n/t

[yellowcanine]

7. How about maintenance people, security guards, etc? A university

horticultural research center was also fire bombed. Keep fire bombing "empty" buildings and sooner or later someone is going to get hurt.

[NaturalHigh]

23. Damaging a transmission tower threatens human life...

in so many ways. Entire towns might be without power, and the crews who have to repair these towers and connected lines are faced with a potentially dangerous task. Sorry, this woman gets no sympathy from me.

[The Stranger]

30. That is really a stretch.

Driving your car pollutes the environment, and hundreds of thousands die yearly from air and water pollution, lung cancer, emphysema, mercury poisioning.

Get real.

[NaturalHigh]

33. A stretch?

Why don't you talk to a lineman who has to climb a transmission pole sometime.

[The Stranger]

35. A stretch.

He'd be glad to get the work -- he climbs tranmission poles for a living.

[rman]

38. definitely a stretch. big one.

[walldude]

62. People are at ski resorts year round in Colorado

There's lots to do in the mountains.
I can't see why anyone would bomb a ski resort anyway.

[MadHound]

4. Firebombing is a crime certainly

Arson, vandalism, etc. etc., there are a number of laws already on the books to deal with that. But trying to legally label these people as terrorists is beyond the pale. It opens them up to potential stripping as their citizenship, being declared an enemy combatant and shipped to Gitmo, where they have no civil rights and can be held indefinetly. This is not the kind of precedent that we don't want to be setting.

[yellowcanine]

8. Fire bombing for political reasons is terrorism. What we do about it is

a separate issue.

[MadHound]

10. In that case many many acts of civil disobiedience could be so labeled

If the bar is set at performing a crime for political reasons, then burning one's draft card, vandalism(such as at the WTO in Seattle), trespassing, disturbing the peace, and a whole host of other such crimes could also be labeled as terrorism. Do we really want to go down that road? Do you really want to see actions that were performed by ML King, Abby Hoffman, and others now become ground for stripping your citizenship? Sorry friend, but that is a slippery slope we don't need to go down. Rather charge them with the more than plentiful laws we already have on the books and leave it at that. Doing otherwise leads to fascism and stifling of dissent. After all, these acts and more have never been labeled as terrorism before, why overturn hundreds of years of legal precedence now?

[Kingshakabobo]

11. Sorry. I have to disagree.

I hope you are not calling burning down a ski lodge civil disobedience. The fact that you even mention MLK in this discussion is a little bit shocking. Real people tend to get hurt when buildings burn. What about firemen?

This is violence used to further a political cause- terrorism. It's a shame boosh ruined the word but it's still terrorism. Terrorism deserves harsher sentences just like hate crimes deserve harsher sentences.

[MadHound]

14. Burning down a ROTC building in the sixties

Was considered as civil disobiedience. Criminal trespass, such as MLK did, was considered civil disobiedience. Smashing windows at the WTO in Seattle was considered civil disobiedience. And yet you wish to see all of these sorts of crimes prosecuted as terrorist cases? Sorry, but I'm not ready for that kind of police state yet. We're not talking about tacking on an extra five years in jail here like we are with hate crime convictions, we're talking about stripping your citizenship away, putting you on a slow boat to Gitmo and throwing away the key. Do you really want to go there? Do you fully realize what that would mean for this country, what slippery slope that leads down?

Sorry friend, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I will fight tooth and nail against the implementation of any sort of police state in that manner. Prosecute them for arson, sure, but not as terrorists. Otherwise we'll slide down that slope so quick that you'll be waking up the morning after attending a peace rally and find that you too are now a terrorist.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. I guess we'll both have to fight to make sure the government.....

that administers justice in this country does so within the bounds of the constitution. That way, we can leave it up to the judges and juries to determine what is a violent crime or not a violent crime. That way, we can have harsh penalties for the people who use violence to further their causes, whether they be an abortion clinic "arsonists" (there, how's that sound?) or an eco-terrorist.

On edit: I never said non-violent demonstrations should be considered terrorism. You are making that up. Again, listen to MLK.

[MadHound]

21. Then if we're going to administer law within the bounds

Of the Constitution, then these people will be charged for the crimes they committed, not as terrorists. That is fine, you commit arson, you go to jail. But you still retain you civil rights and your citizenship. Defining these people as terrorists, as per the Bushco Justice Dept. simply opens up a whole can of worms we don't want to deal with.

[yellowcanine]

45. Calling them "terrorists" doesn't preclude due process. But to say it is

just "civil disobedience" understates the crime that was committed and diminishes the meaning of real civil disobedience. If we are going to preclude using the word "terrorists" when it is justified then Bush and the "Patriot" Act fascists have won.

[Rich Hunt]

39. thank you

We can't go back to the sixties, re-defining 'dissent' to such an extreme that it opens the door for
saboteurs, provocateurs, and others who would do damage to legitimate environmental movements.

When will people learn this lesson?

[yellowcanine]

17. I said fire bombing, not burning a draft card or trespassing. Stop

trying to obfuscate the issue with red herrings. As far as I know MLK never threw a Molotov cocktail into a building, empty or occupied. It was the KKK that was bombing and yes they were terrorists.

[MadHound]

19. Then what about some of the serious sixties radicals

Black Panthers, Weather Underground, etc. Were they terrorists? Were the folks up in Seattle for the WTO, smashing windows and causing damage terrorists? Do you really think that it is just and right for those people to have their citizenship stripped away, and be shipped off to Gitmo? Do you really want to go down that slippery slope?

[yellowcanine]

24. Some were terrorists, yes. But don't confuse what is with what we

should do about it. We CAN deal with domestic terrorism without throwing out the Constitution. It is not an eithor/or situation. Black Panthers and WU who committed acts of violence were prosecuted under civil law in the 1960s without resorting to Gitmo, suspension of habeus corpus, and military tribunals. It CAN be done.

[MadHound]

28. And that is what I'm saying!!

Prosecute these ELF and ALF people under normal law, do not resort to legally identifying them as terrorists. Once you legally define them as terrorists, then they are subject to much stricter penalties, up to and including being stripped of their citizenship, their civil rights, and shipped to Gitmo. This is what part of the Patriot Act was about, and also a number of Bush's executive orders.

[AngryAmish]

36. Damn right the Weather Underground were terrorists

I know a man who struggles everyday with quadriplegia because of them.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. It's a bit more complicated than mere property destruction.

The intent of the property destruction is to make people fearful of investing in projects that these people deem "destructive" to the environment, so in that respect I suppose it could vaguely fall under the definition of terrorism. However, I prefer the term "Ecotard."

[AngryAmish]

6. Firefighters are not human?

Or they just "little people" who do not count in your agenda? You know, gotta break a few eggs...they really don't count, because they look or think different than me...

[XemaSab]

9. I'm totally oppsed to labeling these acts as terrorism

Call them arson and prosecute the criminals for the costs of fighting the fires like they do with other fires.

Call it "terrorism" and you may as well form a posse and string them up in the current climate.

[Deja Q]

12. And I thought she murdered too many daisies, daffodils, and forests...

:crazy:

[Redneck Socialist]

13. I'm surprised by how many here...

are so eager to join the rights 'war on domestic terra' and are lapping up right wing talking points.

There has been a concerted effort by many on the right to label environmental activists as terrorists. If you think the right will be content demonizing foreigners you are dead wrong. They are chomping at the bit to apply 'War on Terra' (tm) tactics here at home against US citizens.

A little light reading for you all.

Far more people in this country have been killed by right wing domestic terrorist than by those with leftist ideologies and no one has been killed by so called 'eco-terrorists,' yet the FBI has decided that environmentalists are public enemy number one.

From CNN: "Domestic terror: Who's most dangerous?
Eco-terrorists are now above ultra-right extremists on the FBI charts" http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/schuster.column/

Source Watch has a good history of 'eco-terrro.' http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eco-terrorism

ALTERNET documents the disparity in sentencing between 'eco-terror' crimes and other criminal activity.

"A remorseless rapist in Hamilton County, Ohio is sentenced to 15 years in prison for beating and raping a 57-year-old woman. An environmental activist in California is sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for burning three SUVS at a car dealership after taking precautions to harm no lives." http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/26077/

And finally, text of a bill the righties would love to pass. It's from a right wing site. I couldn't find a better source with a quick search, sorry. http://www.wlfa.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=1129

Arson is bad, m'kay, but it's already against the law. Let's not join the righties in a rush to label it terrorism unless you feel like a trip to gitmo for protesting the destruction of our environment.

[yellowcanine]

18. This is not good logic. You are saying that because the wing nuts label

this as terrorism, then we have to disagree. You are also saying that because we agree with someone's cause, they cannot be a terrorist. No the ends does not justify the means. If I use terror to make rich folks give money to feed starving children I am a terrorist. The fact that the wingnuts would also call me a terrorists does not make it not so. It doesn't work that way.

[Redneck Socialist]

27. No, actually I didn't say that, but...

what i'm most interested in and concerned with is why the right is so eager to label these actions terrorism. Make no mistake, it is part of a concerted attack on environmental activists and it further opens the door to expanding the War on Terror in the US and against US citizens.

Call arson terror if you wish, just be aware that right is quite deliberately and consciously framing those actions as terror in order to advance an agenda that is, in my opinion far more dangerous than a few fruit cakes armed with a few gallons of gas.

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate that would "Increases penalties for intentionally causing economic disruption or damage...Defines the term “economic damage,” which includes the loss of property, costs associated with a lost experiment, or lost profits.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=247941

"Intentionally causing economic damage...lost profits..." You sit down in front of a bulldozer to protect a patch of woods from logging or development and you cost a company some time and money and suddenly you're a terrorist. That is what this is about, not whether or not we agree with ELF's tactics.

I'm just urging people to be aware of how these incidents are being framed, who is doing the framing a why. It is quite possible to condemn ELF and ALF without helping to advance the right's agenda.

[The Stranger]

31. Wake up.

The wingnuts label the left as "terrorists" when these supposed "ecoterrorists" go out of their way to avoid harming any living thing. They are feeding you a pack of lies and you are swallowing down every morsel.

Wake up. Before it is too late.

Wake up.

[yellowcanine]

41. People who fire bomb buildings are not "going out of their way to avoid

harming any living thing." It is just a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed. You don't believe me? Read about the bombing of Sterling Hall at the University of Wisconsin in 1970 by Vietnam War protestors. http://www.leemark.com/featuredcontent/sterling/sterling.html You wake up.

[The Stranger]

44. This isn't 1970. These aren't Vietnam War protesters. No one died.

These "ecoterrorists" terrorize inanimate objects, which by definition cannot experience terror. These terms are the favorite terms of the true war-mongering, mass murdering supposed non-terrorists in power, and are being used to demonize the Left.

Wake up.

Wake up.

Wake up.

[yellowcanine]

47. Those guys in 1970 thought the building was empty. No one has died YET.

You wake up. Buildings are inanimate objects but the people who use them aren't. If someone fire bombs an empty building you think someone who may have used that building is not terrorized? Never mind fire bombing. If someone breaks into your house when it is empty and sprays political messages on the walls do you think you won't be terrorized?

[The Stranger]

50. Now people are breaking into my house?

This is fucking insane. The fear here is unbelievable. No one is breaking into anyone's house. No one is being terrorized except by the mass media.

Stop. Just stop. Let's try to get back to reality. What is really happening. In real life.

[yellowcanine]

51. It was an example. Real life. Ok. When people set fire to "empty"

buildings sometimes other people die. That real enough for you?

[The Stranger]

57. No, in real life, no one died. No one was even injured, or scared.

Much less "terrorized." Only in the parallel universe you have created have all of these horrible things happened.

THIS is real life.

And all of this assumes she had anything whatsoever to do with the fire, which is mere innuendo, in the "ecoterrorism" story, but which you apparently have accepted as fact.

[yellowcanine]

59. I believe several times I said IF she is guilty. Anyway real life is if

someone keeps setting fires they will eventually hurt someone. It is a violent act and you are either being deliberately disingenuous or real naive if you think that setting fires to empty buildings is not a dangerous activity.

[The Stranger]

63. No, the question isn't what is and what isn't a "dangerous activity."

"Dangerous activities" include driving one's car, crossing a busy street, and, in some cases, reading the wrong books at the library. The Right Wing has now considered these acts of property destruction not a "dangerous activity," but "terrorism."

This they do while waging a massive and illegal war which was launched on the basis of pure, unadulterated fabrication and lies, intended to line the pockets of their corporate contributors, while an entire population of an entire country is subject to torture, mass murder and economic, ecological and environmental annihilation.

By getting you to focus on allegations that these people are "linked to other allegations and calling her a "terrorist," they have pulled the wool over your eyes from what is real terrorism. Even worse, you have taken up their fight on what are supposed to be Progressive internet posting boards.

And you have bought it -- all of it. Wake up, before it is too late.

[yellowcanine]

64. Bullshit. No one has to tell me that setting buildings on fire is more

than just "property distruction". Arson has been around a lot longer than 9-11 and the Patriot Act and its terrorist potential is self evident for anyone who is looking at the world clearly. You wake up (What does that mean anyway? You keep saying it. You need to focus less on meaningless slogans and more on reality. And the raality is that arson is not just "property destruction"). And quit hiding behind the fact that these are just allegations. You are excusing allegations of arson as "just property destruction" and trying to deny the distinct possibility that someone could get killed by these kinds of activities. It is disingenuous to equate the dangers of arson with the possibility of having a car accident.

[The Stranger]

69. Bullshit right back - THIS IS NOT TERRORISM, and for the last time:

No has one died. Not a one. This was INTENTIONAL. No incident EVEN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN "LINKED" TO THIS PERSON, has resulted in ANYONE'S INJURY.

No one was even reportedly SCARED by the incident. All of the fear is coming from your incessant posting about made-up events that do not exist in reality. Stop making up facts to create fear-mongering on these boards.

I tried to get you to wake up, but maybe it is not the case that you have naively fallen into the Right Wing talking points demonizing anyone who acts against them and corporate interests. Maybe you knew what you were doing all along here.

[yellowcanine]

70. Interesting that you defend the actions while maintaining the "alleged"

designation. What's that all about? How, for example, do you know that it was "intentional" that no one has died? But you keep making my point for me - "empty" buildings have a way of being occupied in the middle of the night when no one is "supposed" to be there. And you keep talking about "right wing talking points". What makes you so sure that the person who did these acts isn't a right winger trying to make environmentalist activists look bad? Hmmm?

[Loonman]

20. Pretty specious argument

Don't you agree?

[Rich Hunt]

40. they ARE 'ultra-right'

Read up on the 'third position', and how fascists are using far left environmentalism to infiltrate the left.

If you study what these people say, they are anti-humanist - they are nihilists. I've read the literature, I've seen them on bulletin boards. Their goal is to co-opt young anarchist movements, co-opting their language of alienation to justify terror.

Don't forget this is not without precedent. Many fascist groups over the years, including the Nazis, used 'pro-nature' rhetoric in defense of their actions.

People who've spent a lot of time in the environmental and global justice movements know ALL about these saboteurs and provocateurs.

[AngryAmish]

15. Damaging a transmission tower

Which I assume may turn off the power somewhere. I just hope nobody was on a home ventilator or depend on electricity to keep themselves alive.

[The Stranger]

32. That is really a stretch.

Is there any reason to assume that someone was relying on this transmission tower for the only power to their ventilator, and that their life was at risk as a result? Is there any link for this? Is there any evidence of this?

Or is all of this created from whole cloth and put in your post and re-posted and re-posted?

[AngryAmish]

34. Whole cloth made up by me

It is a scenario that could happen.

There are people who do rely on electricity to save their lives, tho. I'll give you an example I am personally familiar with. A six year old kid with a tracheotomy. In order to breathe the kid had to breathe out of a tube in his throat. Several times a day his mother needs to use an ELECTRICAL suction device to the mucus out of his throat. When the tube gets clogged his mom calls it his "silent scream". The kid suffocates until his mom clears the tube. Then consider if the power goes out. His mom has to use a mechanical device (much more difficult) while holding a flashlight. Not fun. Torture for the kid.

But you know, this was all fun and games for this spoiled little rich girl. You see this kid, literally, is a little person whose interests pales in comparison to her noble cause. The kid is expendable.

[The Stranger]

46. What world are you living in?

You dreamed up some kind of link between this poor kid and a story about "ecoterrorists" and a transmission tower?

Interesting.

[yellowcanine]

48. Some people do depend on electricity. People at home on a respirator or

home dialysis, for example. People set their houses on fire with candles when the power goes out. It happens. It is not a hypothetical argument. Besides, if the charges are true, she didn't just attack a ski resort and a transmission tower. She also fire bombed a university horticultural research building. Have you ever done research in a university building at 3 am when you were the only person in the building and from the outside the building probably looked empty? I have and I can tell you that stories like this scare me even now and that was 15 years ago.

[The Stranger]

49. Then stop being so afraid. That is the problem.

The masses have been so inundated with messages of fear and terrorism that they are dreaming up scenarios and dangers that do not exist. Last week a bipolar man was shot in cold blood while fleeing, and people panicked trying to justify it because they were scared he was somehow going to get them.

Think. Don't be afraid. Free your mind.

[yellowcanine]

53. If people are fire bombing buildings I am going to be afraid. That is

not a "dreamed up scenario". And no thank you but I don't need people running around committing arson for whatever reason,no matter how righteous the cause or no cause at all, to "free my mind" whatever the fuck that means. I doubt that you even know.

[Bridget Burke]

22. The article does not mention that any human was hurt....

There are laws against vandalism or destruction of someone else's property that are relevant to these incidents.

"Ecoterrorism" is not Terrorism.

[yellowcanine]

43. Suppose someone had been in one of the "empty buildings" like the

"empty" research building at the University of Wisconsin in 1970 that was bombed in the wee hours of the morning on April 24, 1970 by antiwar activists, killing Robert Fassnacht. http://www.leemark.com/featuredcontent/sterling/sterling.html
Sometimes an "empty building" is not empty. There are more effective and safer ways to make a political point.

[Bridget Burke]

52. Killing peole is already against the law.

I DON'T agree with the tactics of the more extreme ecological activists. If they break existing laws, they should be prosecuted.

But the word "Ecoterrorism" is meant to link anyone concerned about the environment with terrorism.

[yellowcanine]

54. Only if you allow it. Anyway, "terrorist" is descriptive enough. Forget

the "eco" part, then. Anyone who commits arson for the purpose of making a political point IS a terrorist so let's call it what it is.

[Marie26]

25. Yeah it is

They're terrorists when they're on the opposite side; freedom fighters when they're on your side. I think any illegal action thats intended to spread fear & terror for ideological reasons is terrorism. But there are different degrees - this sounds much less serious than say the IRA.

[Selatius]

26. She's a terrorist if it is proven she did all of that.

Setting fires to SUVs and buildings will eventually get somebody killed the longer it is allowed to continue. It is using force and terror to get people to do things that they find acceptable. I'm sorry, but that's not the way to make change happen. If you want to convince people of your cause, the best way is through educating people about the issues, not torching and smashing things. Is this what somebody like Martin Luther King, Jr. utilized with respect to fighting the injustices of segregation and hate? Most certainly not.

[rman]

37. "will eventually get somebody killed"

That remains to be seen.

And it sound to much like "program related activities".

Sounds to much like "...can't wait for there to be evidence of a crime..." (-Ashroft).

[Kingshakabobo]

56. WTF?

I'm sure all these deaths were unintentional....

edit:to change intentional to unintentional


Arson Fire Statistics Year Fires Deaths Direct Dollar Loss In Millions
1995¹ 90,500 740 $1,647
1996 85,500 520 $1,405
1997 78,500 445 $1,309
1998 76,000 470 $1,249
1999 72,000 370 $1,281
2000 75,000 505 $1,340
2001² 45,500 330 $1,013
2001³ 45,500 2,451 $33,440
2002 44,500 350 $919
2003 37,500 305 $692
2004 36,500 320 $714

¹ Includes 168 civilian deaths that occurred in the explosion and fire in the federal office building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.

² Excludes the events of September 11, 2001.

³ These estimates reflect the number of deaths, injuries, and dollar loss directly related to the events of September 11, 2001.

Source: National Fire Protection Association Fire Loss in the U.S. During 2004 Abridged Report.

[rman]

61. The fact that fires can cause death does not make it terrorism.

Here's the CIA's definition of terrorism:


"The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism."

http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html

[Selatius]

58. What it "sounds like" is irrelevant. You support these activities???

I believe the most prudent course of action would be utilizing methods first that educate the people. Setting fires isn't going to change people's minds. In fact, I would argue it is more likely to push away people and alienate them rather than win them over. It feels good, but I don't believe it will accomplish anything. The path of non-violence should be tried first. Violent action should only be utilized as the absolute last resort after all peaceful remedies have been exhausted.

[rman]

60. I'm opposed to the activity of calling it "terrorism"

It is way over the top to call it that.

As it is over the top to liken "wmd program related activities" to wmds.

You can't seriously mean that someone should be treated as a terrorist because something the are doing 'might eventually kill someone'.


This is regardless of me supporting those activities or not.
Your point was that it is terrorism, and that's what i was responding to.

[yellowcanine]

65. If the purpose is to terrorize people it is terrorism regardless of who

does it. It is hard to make the case that arson is not a deliberate act designed to terrorize people, particularly when it is a string of arsons of different kinds of buildings which is what is alleged here.

[rman]

66. CIA definition of terrorism:

"The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism."

http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html



If we'd follow your definition of terrorism, then even a holdup at grocery store would be terrorism.
I know that certain people would like to define everything they don't agree with as terrorism. I hope you are not one of them.

[yellowcanine]

68. No - a holdup of a grocery store is to get money, not to terrorize. And

I really don't care what the CIA definition is. We would do well to ignore government definitions as they tend to be politically motivated - as in "my terrorist is your freedom fighter and vice versa."

I consider some of the tactics of antiabortion activists to be terrorism, for example, but I doubt that the CIA does.

[Selatius]

71. You're missing the central thrust of my post completely.

And that is that these activities are more harmful than helpful, regardless if you consider it terrorism or not. You will NEVER win over people through these tactics, never. You have not responded to my post to definitely deny or support these activities with respect to setting fires and committing acts of vandalism. So what is your position? What is your position?

With respect to calling it terrorism, I try to call things as I see them, and I call that terrorism. You don't call it terrorism because it's arson against inanimate objects. Is that so? OK then. I guess you wouldn't call the Klansmen thugs who set fire to Black churches across the Deep South, where I currently live, back in the 1990s terrorists either because they were targeting inanimate objects, too, not people.

You want to go down this road with respect to violent vs. non-violent methods of spreading one's message? Do you really, honestly want to do that? I'll save you the trouble and tell you that these tactics are on the road to nowhere.

[Swede]

29. How about dangerous fanatic?

That's what she is.

[Skidmore]

42. I read that as "ectoterrorist" at first and wondered if there is an

X-File somewhere.

[ieoeja]

55. I keep reading far "left".

And yet most environmental and animal rights activists I personally know (anecdote) are pure rightwing on every other issue.

Do not assume the arsonist is leftwing.

[rman]

67. Exactly -

who'd gain from 'the left' being portraying as militant extremists?

It wouldn't be the first time.