Ecoterrorism

[truthaddict11]

what are your peoples opinions on the growing trend of Ecoterrorism? Do you really think burning SUVs and spiking trees , which can cause serious harm to loggers, be supported?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm undecided. On one hand they are fighting against the criminally stupid excesses of capitalism (I mean, who really needs an SUV that does 2 miles to the gallon?)
But the the deepness of their ecology is what concerns me. A worrying trend I'm finding is that deep ecologists have a dislike of technology that's scary.

[FatFreeMilk]

what are your peoples opinions on the growing trend of Ecoterrorism? Do you really think burning SUVs and spiking trees , which can cause serious harm to loggers, be supported?



It's the stupidest thing ever. The people who go out and destroy Hummers and shit are a bunch of hypocrites.
Last year some morons from ELF demolished a hummer dealership, but at the same time, did more harm to the atmosphere than all the vehicles they destroyed COMBINED would do in their "lifetime".
Maybe if these dolts had used organic paint or something and maybe done research into a more "earth friendly" way of destroying vehicles, (after all, that is what they're supposedly there for), I'd give them props, but no, hypocrites get no respect.

[CorporationsRule]

1) A "fear" of technology and a critical analysis of its effects on the planet and human life are two very different things. An uncritical love of massified technological society is what's truly scary.

2) "The deepness of their ecology" is a sweet thing to say. Keep up the good work.

3) The "burning hummers is poluting" argument is absurd. Anybody who thinks the person doing the burning is trying to stop those particular cars from poluting needs to try not being stupid. Burning SUVs can have absolutely no impact on the level ecoterrorists are able to operate. The point of eco-terrorism is to make both a political statement and to begin to hit the system where it might feel it, the wallet. Also, all this focus on SUVs takes away from the more important work ELF does of taking out housing developments. The message is "if you plan on building something, and we protest showing you that the community doesn't want you to pave over anymore of our prescious land, we don't want to attract more people and their trash to our area, we do not want to perpetuate the imminent collapse of our biosphere, and if you won't listen, somebody is going to burn it down."

When our bloated capitalist economy begins to collapse, or when the destruction of our biosphere begins to affect our daily lives in ways we can't ignore, or when energy begins to become scarce, or just generally when our privileged asses begin to feel the backlash of centuries of aggression perpetrated by our globalizing, monocultural civilization against every living thing on this planet--plant, animal, human, you name it--those you guys call "eco-terroists" will be seen as heros...although we probably won't have iconic pictures of them to put on t-shirts, so you guys probably won't get it.

Confront your privilege.

[Fidelbrand]

For the Kyoto agreement, Bush and Clinton both declined their support. Many countries follow suit which led to tis failure.

Haughtiness and selfishness of the developed nations should cease, as we, human beings, are facing a global problem that matters our way of life in the future, and most saliently, our EXISTENCE.
http://www.morethanwords.it/studenti/calshop/armati13.gif

[pedro san pedro]

For the Kyoto agreement, Bush and Clinton both declined their support. Many countries follow suit which led to tis failure.

clinton signed onto kyoto - bush then pulled out. and kyoto hasnt failed - with russia ratifying, kyoto is coming into force for all nations of the world - except for the usa and australia.



i think that ecoterrorists are doing way more harm than good, managing to discredit the environmental movement as a whole, while achieving very little.

i'm sure that the burning of a few hummers didnt close the factorys down.

noxion, i think that you will find that most deep ecologists look to technology as a solution to the worlds environmental problems. during the 80's, the environmental movement had a shift away from saying 'dont do that' or 'stop that' to ' do it in this manner instead'. dont let a few radicals tar your point of view

[CorporationsRule]

"I think that ecoterrorists are doing way more harm than good, managing to discredit the environmental movement as a whole, while achieving very little."

The environmental movement discredits itself by allowing itself to be coopted into a reform movement. At what point do you stop being reasonable, or at least understand and perhaps cheer on those braver than yourself?


"Don't let a few radicals tar your point of view."

Our forests are gone, our land is mutilated by monocultural, petrol based agriculture and suburban sprawl, our air and water is poisoned, plants and animals go extinct...

When you live in a genocidal, ecocidal, dominating, homogenizing culture that is killing the biological basis on which itself, and all life, must survive, at what point do you do something about it? At what point do you stop buying into the ideologies (of property, of production, of work, of progress, of civility, of rationality, of state santioned violence and oppression) that oil the machine and keep it hurtling head long toward it's own, and your own, destruction?

Nearly all environmental reform achieved over the past few decades has been completely erased in four short years. The system doesn't understand reform. It only understands destruction.

Demonizing those with the courage to talk back is the counter-revolutionary privilege of the comfortable liberal/commie. Don't be one of those. Chicks don't dig wimps.

[pedro san pedro]

grow up little man. you dont change sweet f**k all by going out once and torching a few cars. what does this do? grinds the planet destroying system to a halt?

environmental change is occuring for the positive around the globe - and has occured through the acts of people that work hard every day to see these realised. activism is about long, boring work, not the occasional act of random violence.

you think these are 'revolutionary' acts?? how do you propose to get the rest of the population behind you? most of them aren't even going to know you exist.

you talk of wimps - i think it takes a whole lot more courage to commit to a long term campiagn that will threaten your 'comforatable' status, than it does to sneak round at night throwing stones at windows.

grow up

[CorporationsRule]

You grow up.

[CorporationsRule]

Oh, and there's a difference between random acts of rock throwing and politically and economically targetted property destruction.

The control mongering destroyers of the natural basis on which we live are winning, and your reform movements are complicit.

At what point do you stop worrying so much about being a grown up, and start thinking about waking up?

The Following is a review of Derrick Jensen's "A Language Older than Words" from http://www.theemailactivist.org/OlderThanWords.htm

Derrick Jensen's astonishing and gut-wrenching book, A Language Older Than Words, is written in language bolder than words.

“Every morning I wake up and ask myself whether I should write a book or blow up a dam,” writes Jensen in his opening pages. “Every day I tell myself I should continue to write. Yet I’m not always convinced I’m making the right decision.” This is the agony of an environmentalist and a pacifist who has come to realize that he’s been throwing snowballs at army tanks. While he debates and negotiates with the polluters, the developers and the industrialists, they continue their destructive activities virtually unimpeded. How long, wonders Jensen, can we afford to go on being pacifists? How long can we go on being nothing more than the loyal opposition?

“Scientists study, politicians and businesspeople lie and delay, activists write letters and press releases, I write books and articles, and still the salmon die. It’s a cozy relationship for all of us except the salmon.”

Jensen, whether he realizes it or not, is the philosopher-king of the deep ecology movement. In this provocative and insightful book, he shows us that deep ecology is truly deep, not the shallow feel-good wishful thinking of the New Agers who too often represent the movement. Drawing on personal experience, anecdotal evidence, historical examples, and philosophical thought from the early sophists to Descartes, Jensen helps his readers peer over the tops of our cultural eyeglasses. He invites us to gaze at the world unfiltered by our shared myths and illusions about human progress. The earth is dying. We are the cause. We can stop it, but first we will have to begin talking about some subjects we’ve all agreed never to talk about.

[pedro san pedro]

try looking at two organisations, one violent and one nonviolent that are working on the same issue - for example greenpeace and the sea shepard both have a history of direct action within whaleing campaigns.

because of greenpeaces nonviolent stance, they have access to the international whaling commission and are able to effectively looby individual governments across the globe. they hav been able to stop a vast majority of whaling.

sea shepard has a violent stance, sinking whaling vessals at sea, and placing mines on boats that are moored. they have sunk a few boats, but th industry is so large that they have been unable to stoop any nation from whaling.

having a forum to enage your adversary is essential to effecting environmental change of this nature

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Diversity of tactics! It is not a question of either/or, nor is direct action (Destorying property is not violent! Stop buying into their definitions!) or lobbying effective on its own. Ultimately, with the ELF as the largest "domestic terrorist group" in the United States, the threat of direct and meaningful economic damage is going to make companies more likely to concede to our demands.

Case in point, might be DIRECT ACTION and Litton bombing - ultimately, the power of propaganda by deed was able to mobilize people against Litton, and the threat of another bomb dettered investment, and ultimately prevented the company from making parts for the cruise missile - mission accomplished.

[CorporationsRule]

"Having a forum to enage your adversary is essential to effecting environmental change of this nature."

It's also essential to the systems uncanny ability to coopt any movement for meaningful change (not just environmental)...

But yeah, like Virgin Molotov Cocktail said, it's not an either or thing.

That being said, reform is doomed. Who needs whaling when you can just destroy biosystems instead?

[Wurkwurk]

Ecoterrorism...you got to be joking me. Just another way to frighten already the already terrified mass of American sheep. Lol!!

The real ecoterrorists are almost everybody who owns a car or uses air con, nothing we can really do about that 'cept buy ourselves a hybrid. The effects of 'true' ecoterrorism won't be fully understood by politicians who hold the power until half their nation (or all, if talking about singapore) is submurged in the ocean.

[CorporationsRule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 03:39 AM
Ecoterrorism...you got to be joking me. Just another way to frighten already the already terrified mass of American sheep. Lol!!

The real ecoterrorists are almost everybody who owns a car or uses air con, nothing we can really do about that 'cept buy ourselves a hybrid. The effects of 'true' ecoterrorism won't be fully understood by politicians who hold the power until half their nation (or all, if talking about singapore) is submurged in the ocean.
I don't know. If Osama Bin Laden gets ahold of enough refrigorators and smashes them all at once, thus letting countless CFCs into the air in one giant ozone blowing free for all...

Also, you are an idiot.

[socialistfuture]

i'm of mixed views about eco-terrorism. on the one hand burning an SUV must be addidng to the polution problem (melting plastic etc) and a whole lot more new ones will be made.
yet on the other hand we are simply destroying to much and if protests and lobbying is not working direct action may be needed to change things.

it is not enough to simply blame capitalism and corporations on the destruction of our natural world. we all partake in it in various ways, so really modern consumer society needs a wake up call or we will be in the shits in the next 50 or so years, prehaps even less. if its legal and normal to destroy what remains of the natural world and to continue to wipe out species and it is called terrorism to care and act against these things then so be it. my loyality is to the earth not to a buisness or product.
i guess targetting a few SUVs and taking on some loggers will not change a lot in the big picture, but change is needed on a large scale and many small actions are a part of the process.
surely it is terrorism to destroy the alaskan wildlife sanctiory to drill for oil when so much of the oil is simply not needed. if more people walked around, there would be less fat people and less petrol used. so all in all eco terrorism i guess is a necessity if all other methods are used and denied. on its own nothing can change, but with education and looking at eco-firendly ways of existance and living things can improve.

ps. has anyone read GREEN ANARCHY?

[Xvall]

I like them, partially because I am a big fan of breathing, and partially because I sustain an erection at the sight of just about anything being burned to the ground.