Talk:Eco-terrorism/Archives/02/2014

Many Definitions Fit Ecoterrorism

There are many, many definitions of terrorism that do not require human beings to be the target, or for the intended result to be any person's death or injury. The US Department of Defense defines terrorism as:

the unlawful use of - or threatened use of - force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Meanwhile, Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as:

premediated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The FBI defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

So really the FBI definition does not vary greatly from the legal one or that used by the DoD, and is not extreme. In fact by two of the three definitions ecoterrorism fits, if not the legal definition. Moreover, it is important that this legal definition is not for the crime of terrorism, but rather the legal definition of terrorism that the Secretary of State shall use in categorizing incidents. --Xinoph 03:52, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Not so. The FBI and DoD definitions vary very much with the legal definition because of the inclusion of damage to property. Many, but not all "eco-terrorists" do damage to property, but not violence to people. The noncombatant tag also greatly changes things, though perhaps this is not as relevant here.

I must point out that tree spiking and firebombing McDonald's restaurants is not technically an attack on a person, but neither was flying a plane into the WTC. It is just the poor janitor in the McDonalds or the man who is nearly decapitated by a broken saw blade (thanks tree spikers), or the inhabitants of the WTC who might disagree with the "We only attack things, not people" philosophy. plain_regular_ham 14:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I could also point out that damage to property isn't necessarily the end goal for "eco terrorists". They damage property in order to intimidate people through threat of injury or death. The example that Ham used above, some tree-spiker may try to argue that he isn't injuring people by spiking trees but it is intimidating and threatening ("terrorizing" would be another word) to people and an attempt to modify their behavior through this threat of violence against them.--JonGwynne 00:55, 6

May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think a big part of eco-terrorism is that it is designed to attract public attention. This differentiates it from monkey-wrenching, and other borderline activity that can be similar. So it definitely is intended to be threatening and visible. Bonus Onus 01:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

As regards definitions, we are all on very dodgy ground. "Terrorism" has been used recently as a loaded term, designed to influence by association (cf the USA PATRIOT act) and has maybe not settled into the language yet sufficiently to allow a definition acceptable to all. However "subnational groups" in the second of the above three proposed definitions sets it out from the other two. It suggests that actions perpetuated by the government of a nation are somehow different in kind from those performed by other bodies. (cf the IRA in 1920, and the IRA in 1970). loony@altern.org 81.250.195.107 20:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the US Code definition of terrorism and real-world examples of corporations engaging in scorched-earth tactics such as creating a "green buffer zone" around a refinery through buying up property is a form of ecoterrorism. Marathon Petroleum Buyout Finds Support In Oakwood Heights Not only at the level of economics in land, financial, educational are impacted as well. Property holders standing in the path of ′corporate progress′ are goaded into being combatants or surrendering. Educational prospects in heavily polluted areas are diminished. While many wish to villify those standing up for their rights to have clean air, water, and land - responsible rational people have to understand the basis for their actions. True ecoterrorists in my belief are often corporations and they are aided and abetted by regulators allowing illegal activities while the corporation seeks to become compliant with law. Stephen "Fuzzytek" Boyle (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)