• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

spanky

spanky

Banned
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,431
Reaction score
979
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Title says it all.
 
yes... yes they are terrorist acts.
 
What kind of violence? More specifics please.
 
Yes, they most definitely ARE terrorist acts. ANY violent act carried out against the public/private business in order to attempt to change political policy is an act of terrorism BY DEFINITION.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What kind of violence? More specifics please.
Click to expand...

They don't necessarily have to include injury or death to people. Putting metal spikes in trees, bombing or setting fire to animal research facilities or foresters late at night when no one is there. Sabotaging equipment. Etc..
 
Yeah, I'd say it fits the definition.
 
BTW - I didn't frame this as a Yes/No poll, peoples reasoning as to why they think is more important and much more instructive.
 
I agree with Tigger and others.
 
I'd need more information than has been given so I err on the side of "Maybe. Just depends." Is "violence" violence against people, violence against property, or both?
 
Terrorism is defined by the act, not the cause.
 
Fisher said:
I'd need more information than has been given so I err on the side of "Maybe. Just depends." Is "violence" violence against people, violence against property, or both?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on ones definition of terrorism. Most include a threat of violence against individuals but it also includes any acts of violence to further a political, religious or ideological goal.
 
Paul Austin said:
Terrorism is defined by the act, not the cause.
Click to expand...

Unless it occurs at Fort Hood by a U.S. citizen/military member, then it is only "workplace violence". We had no problem, back in the day, but now we must be PC in defining the use of the term "terrorism".
 
Depends

A stupid act of violence or property destruction absolutely and I am an environmentalist.
 
spanky said:
Title says it all.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.So basically two things have to happen in order for something to be terrorist act, the unlawful use of violence and the goal to coerce and or intimidate a group of people with that unlawful use of violence. Merely bombing a building,merely killing someone does not meet that definition of terrorism. So the answer is maybe.
 
spanky said:
I guess it depends on ones definition of terrorism. Most include a threat of violence against individuals but it also includes any acts of violence to further a political, religious or ideological goal.
Click to expand...

I err on the side of caution particularly when it comes to civil disobedience. To me it is highly situational--if a civil rights protestor gets in a scuffle with a policeman or damages property, is it "terrorism"? When we have so diluted the meaning of terrorism it might apply to protests gone poorly, then terrorism has no meaning. Likewise, if a member of ELF burns does something to stop a specific project, it that really trying to promote a political cause by violence against property or is to stop that specific project? I don't know where I come down on some of these other than they are criminal.
 
Last I read, these groups are considered domestic terrorists (by the government), so I suppose it depends on the exact actions they take.
 
spanky said:
Title says it all.
Click to expand...

No, it is absolutely not a terrorism. When they repeatedly destroy a development company's equipments and hospitals' research facilities, those businesses tend to go out of business, and thereby we get a much better brand new opportunity, which is to buy out those newely blighted assets (lands, buildings, etc.) at the penny price. Violence is terrorism ONLY when it is against your interest.
 
lizzie said:
Last I read, these groups are considered domestic terrorists (by the government), so I suppose it depends on the exact actions they take.
Click to expand...

How unfortunate. There is a better view though, I would like to say, that as soon as the local election board gains a few new members who work for the OTHER guy who was waiting in line for those assets, then domestic terrorism immediately becomes just domestic vandalism.
 
ab9924 said:
No, it is absolutely not a terrorism. When they repeatedly destroy a development company's equipments and hospitals' research facilities, those businesses tend to go out of business, and thereby we get a much better brand new opportunity, which is to buy out those newely blighted assets (lands, buildings, etc.) at the penny price. Violence is terrorism ONLY when it is against your interest.
Click to expand...

OMG- are you serious? Destruction of private property is a good thing in your opinion?
 
lizzie said:
OMG- are you serious? Destruction of private property is a good thing in your opinion?
Click to expand...

I think, that I learnt in history class, that posession is 9/10th of the law, so if you can't afford the guns to say what's yours, then your private property is not your private property, and it is ready to be "auctioned" away to those who do have the guns. Especially when it is about land and buildings ... no legislative support to your operation, no guns, ... is your business model even viable?

Also, im my humble oppinion, environmentalists are better guys than most thugs, they tend to return the land to those owners/investors who are not desperate to profit out of it at all cost.
 
ab9924 said:
I think, that I learnt in history class, that posession is 9/10th of the law, so if you can't afford the guns to say what's yours, then your private property is not your private property, and it is ready to be "auctioned" away to those who do have the guns. Especially when it is about land and buildings ... no legislative support to your operation, no guns, ... is your business model even viable?

Also, im my humble oppinion, environmentalists are better guys than most thugs, they tend to return the land to those owners/investors who are not desperate to profit out of it at all cost.
Click to expand...

In this country, private property is private property, and it belongs to the owner, unless he/she has neglected to pay property taxes. And no, environmentalists who commit violence and destruction are no better than any other thug.
 
jamesrage said:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.So basically two things have to happen in order for something to be terrorist act, the unlawful use of violence and the goal to coerce and or intimidate a group of people with that unlawful use of violence. Merely bombing a building,merely killing someone does not meet that definition of terrorism. So the answer is maybe.
Click to expand...

When I agree with James on something, it is time to be ready for the apocalypse. You nailed it sir with the appropriate definition and answer.
 
Environmental Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are considered terrorist groups. I am currently taking classes toward a degree in Criminal Justice. All of my instructors and text books so far have listed these groups as terrorist groups. If the environmental or animal rights group does any act of violence or threaten violence intended to change social or political policies a certain way, that is considered terrorism.

It isn't about the group or their identity, but it is about their reason for doing what they are doing if they are perpetrating violence or threatening people. For instance, a Muslim can blow up a building without it being an act of terrorism. Whether it can be considered terrorism will be completely dependent on what his reasoning is behind the act, not how we perceive what he did. Maybe he was the business owner and trying to get insurance. Maybe he felt slighted in some way by the person who did own the building and it was an act of vengeance. Or maybe he just liked to blow things up. If he wasn't trying to bring about some form of change, it isn't terrorism.
 
Terrorism doesn't become terrorism or cease to be terrorism based upon the person issuing the threat or committing the violent act in question.

Terrorism doesn't become terrorism or cease to be terrorism if the cause for which it is committed happens to be one we agree or disagree with.

As to the question of whether or not violence committed by "militant eco or animal rights groups" constitutes terrorism, that would need to be examined on a case by case basis. Incidental violence (i.e. shoving a security guard out of the way while trying to get away) isn't terrorism, while blowing up an animal testing facility during hours when it is reasonably known or expected to be staffed certainly would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom