MovieChat Forums > If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front Discussion > ELFs are as much 'terrorists' as torrent...

ELFs are as much 'terrorists' as torrent users 'pirates'

posted 12 years ago by JustMammal
29 replies | jump to latest

While I don't condone destroying property or copyright infringement, I hate when such gross misnomers (and/or bad metaphors) like "terrorists" & "pirates" are used to describe non-violent offenders.

By their nature "terrorists" & "pirates" are violent, but what is violent about a guy caring for environment so much that he takes financially costly but physically harmless actions (even subsequently working in the "Center for prevention of domestic violence"), or for that matter a kid illegally downloading a copyrighted flick (perhaps about Gandhi)?

Why don't we call executives committing corporate fraud "financial rapists"? Or politicians accepting bribes "civil murderers"? I guess because that would be too embarrassing to the rich and powerful. Wouldn't it?

[–] Lord_X 12 years ago

Ditto.

Language! The thing that means stuff.

[–] tetrahex 12 years ago

Major difference is this, when someone pirates, they steal potential profit, they do not destroy someones property or risk life.

The ELF are terrorists because they go out and destroy others physical property with acts of violence. There is a huge difference between copying a tape and burning someones house down because you disagree with them.

If the ELF believe in such behavior then they should condone those who believe that the ELF are terrorists would be justified in burning ELF members out of their own homes as well.

Like all terrorists, they justify their actions based on arrogance.

[–] JustMammal 12 years ago

A pirate is somebody threatening peoples LIVES for economic gain. And a terrorist is somebody who threatens peoples LIVES for political gain. I sense you'd at least agree we shouldn't call those who download illegally, the same we call Somalians hijacking the ship.

You called what ELF does "an act of violence" but how can you be "violent" towards "property". Is causing thousands of dollars in arson damage, more "violent" than causing billions of dollars of damage through the mortgage fraud?

Arson is only violent when it endangers human life, and it's only an act of terror when it threatens human life. People experience "terror" when they are threaten physically, when ONLY their property is threaten people may experience "anger", "annoyance", "complacency", "anxiety" but never "terror". And for ELF arsonists to be labeled as "terrorists" they have to proven beyond reasonable doubt to have endangered "lives" or "physical integrity" of their target for political gain.

[–] tetrahex 12 years ago

You choose your own narrow definition of terror. Most peoples lives aren't actually endangered by terrorists. They sow fear as they target people and use means outside the law to destroy so they can inflict their will not only on those they attack directly, but everyone else as well. If terrorists blow up an empty plane it isn't terrorism? Sorry, you are trying to talk your way around the issue. Any time you use violent means there is a risk to human life, whether you mean for there to be or not. As you said, terrorists use violence for political gain. They use it to force compliance or impose their will on others. That is what the ELF does, it doesn't like your suv, they burn it, they don't like your house, they burn it, no different than the taliban burning down a school for girls because they don't like it.

[–] JustMammal 12 years ago

Well it all come to intentions: ELF was trying to blackmail economically, whereas real terrorists blackmail by threatening once life. It's like we burn your empty house firsr then when it's full of people. That's terrorism. If you not only don't intend to burn with people inside, but take deliberate precautions not to, that's a criminal act, but not a terrorist act. Like smashing a shop window during a protest gone wrong won't be considered an act of terrorism.

[–] tetrahex 12 years ago

Again, you don't have to threaten life to terrorize. You threaten someones well being or property and you have done the same thing. The elf uses illegal means in acts of violence against property as a means forceful coercion, no different from any other terrorist group. If because you disagreed with me I went over and made sure your house was empty first and burned it to the ground, that would be terrorism. No different if you went around and burned jews out of their homes to get rid of them. A criminal act is theft, a terrorist act is when you impose your will through illegal means on others, the ELF means to terrorize people into submission, that is how they behave, and so they deserve the label of terrorists.

[–] JustMammal 12 years ago

But see, burning my house because let's say I am Jew, has nothing to do with that house, it has to do with me being a Jew. Burning a horse meat processing plant or an SUV lot, destroy the means to cause activities ELF objects against. I think there is a material distinction here, and labeling all as terrorists is overly simplistic.

Now if ELF had intentionally destroyed the house of the CEO of the horse meat processing plant, I would have conceded that that would have been a terrorist act.

[–] tetrahex 12 years ago

Wow if you have to bend logic that far to make your point then it should tell you something. Destroying peoples homes is an act of violence against that person. You can't really have it both ways where you pretend one thing has nothing to do with the other. Ideologically motivated destruction to impose your will and inflict fear on others in the same potential situation outside the law is terrorism.

I burn your abortion clinic that is an ideologically motivated message and a violent attack against an ideological enemy, and a violent message sent to anyone else in the same position. It is terrorism plain and simple.

[–] liutenantsalt 12 years ago

"I think there is a material distinction here, and labeling all as terrorists is overly simplistic.

No, YOU justifying and rationalizing actions that are irrefutably terrorist in nature because you're stupid and crazy enough to BS yourself that it's a noble cause, while also deliberately ignoring the fact that ELF threaten, assault and burn the homes of everyday people as well is overly simplistic. HE'S just calling a Spade a Spade.

[–] liutenantsalt 12 years ago

"And a terrorist is somebody who threatens peoples LIVES for political gain."

The ELF does just that. FREQUENTLY. All you're doing is making it more and more clear you know nothing about the ELF outside of shinyhappy propaganda, and you still don't know what the word "terrorist" actually means.

[–] liutenantsalt 12 years ago

"You called what ELF does "an act of violence" but how can you be "violent" towards "property". Is causing thousands of dollars in arson damage, more "violent" than causing billions of dollars of damage through the mortgage fraud?
"

You Animal Rights/Eco-Terrorists LOVE to parrot this inane bit of propagandic Marxist devaluation of people's lives and rights, but unfortuanetly for you, the vast majority of people and laws in the world don't agree with your pathetic picking and choosing of what does or doesn't constitute violence in accordance with your fanatic deliefs.

Basically, all this self-righteous, violence fetishizing piece of *beep* is saying is that violence is a perfectly acceptable form of action to undertake when it's done in the name of HIS dogmatic beliefs.

[–] JackBourassa 12 years ago

Of course these people are terrorists. How stupid are you? If a person who disagreed with you or your politics and came to your house, even when you and your family were away, and burned it down, what would that be?

It's an act of criminal coercion. They're trying to intimidate you by VIOLENTLY burning down your house. Now how is that any different from what these terrorists do? Just because you support their "cause" doesn't change the fact that they are terrorists.

[–] JustMammal 12 years ago

Me agreeing with ELF is beside the point. I may agree with Irish Resistance Army, yet they are terorists (same as with Resistance against Nazi during WWII) since they killed and threatened to kill civilians. ELF, or at least the protogonists in the movie, may be a criminal organization, but they are not terrorists.

[–] JackBourassa 12 years ago

Terrorism =/= murder. Terrorism is using violent means to coerce people to do things against their will. It's using intimidation to try to get others to do what YOU want them to do, rather than allowing them to do what is in their best interests. Muder is only a method of achieving that, but it isn't the only one.

Arson too is a criminal act. These people were arrested for committing arson. They are not poor political prisoners persecuted for their beliefs. They are arsonists.

These people have no right to burn down other peoples property. They take the law into their own hands and are trying to intimidate others to agree with their point of view. That's terrorism. You're too much of a pussy to admit this because you agree with these idiots ideologically.

But what would you call it if white supremacists burned down black churches, even if no one was killed, because they thought blacks were too uppity? What would you call pro-lifers burning down legal abortion clinics, even if no one was hurt?

Where does this stuff end?

It's called terrorism, every time. This organization was CREATED to do nothing but promote and carry out criminal acts to intimidate those that disagree with them. They are terroists and should be punished to the max of the law.

I'm so glad you draw the line at killing civilians. I draw the line at illegally burning down the properties of other people.

[–] guessmyname1 12 years ago

terrorist
noun
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

By the very definition, they are terrorists.

[–] dogobgyn 12 years ago

"But what would you call it if white supremacists burned down black churches, even if no one was killed, because they thought blacks were too uppity? What would you call pro-lifers burning down legal abortion clinics, even if no one was hurt?"

Yes, but it's in the systems self-interest to condemn actions of racism, anti-abortion and impose a quasi-morality.

If abortions were illegal and conflicted with the values of the general public, would individuals be tolerated if they burnt down an abortion clinic? Certainly; you can guarantee they wouldn't be branded "terrorists" by the mass media either, and by extension the masses.

[–] guessmyname1 12 years ago

The problem with this logic is that it wants so desperately for everyone to understand terrorism as only one specific brand of terrorism, one that rubs against the general publics morals in only the worst way. To me, the underlying message of the ELF's argument that they are not terrorist because they don't hate america, that they love new york, that they didn't blow up people inside of buildings is that they are not middle eastern or foreign. Its a bigoted argument that, at its core, is intrinsically racist and profoundly wrong. Likewise, claiming that only terrorism not done in name of the general public's self-interest will be labeled as such is incredibly ignorant. Just because the general public doesn't address it with critical eyes doesn't mean justice shouldn't.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of its size or who does it, much in the same way that murder is always murder, rape is always rape, theft is always theft. Grey area might exist in justification, but never in definition.

[–] dogobgyn 12 years ago

Yes, it's certainly terrorism, but my point was more directed at how media/people selectively portray terrorism (double standards). The most obvious example being warfare.

[–] liutenantsalt 12 years ago

"since they killed and threatened to kill civilians. ELF, or at least the protogonists in the movie, may be a criminal organization, but they are not terrorists."

THE ELF AND THE ALF THREATEN TO KILL PEOPLE ON A DAILY *beep* BASIS YOU *beep* APOLOGIST MORON.

[–] apis_fiume 12 years ago

I HAVE to see this documentary.
FBI has (or used to have) one eco-terrorist on their most wanted list. Their nicname for him was "vicious vegan". I always found that name amusing.

[–] liutenantsalt 12 years ago

"I hate when such gross misnomers (and/or bad metaphors) like "terrorists" & "pirates" are used to describe non-violent offenders.
"

A. You do not know what the word "Terrorist" means.

B. The ELF is EXCEPTIONALLY violent. Violence and intimidation are their ONLY TACTICS. You can try to wish the truth away with your self-delusional insistence that they don't harm people (even though they do, frequently and directly, alongisde their co-terror cultists in the ALF), you can hide behind Newspeak like :direct action" and you can deflect the discussion by hiding behind environmental hysteria all you want, but the vast majority of people aren't quite as stupid and sollipsistic as you are.

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 12 years ago

We're so farked these days it's not even funny. You can be legally labeled as a terrorist and executed on the spot by a drone for doing as much as sneezing these days. From the Patriot Act all the way through to the NDAA. Rights are a fragment of a memory of the past. What right?

[–] Trackmaster 12 years ago

CinematicExplorer,

PM me your address, and how about I go and burn down your house and all of your personal belongings. It will be alright because I didn't hurt any homo sapiens right?

[–] JustMammal 12 years ago

Again, what would you accomplish by burning my house? Destroying something (not somebody) that you object against, is an act of protest, violent protest I concede, not terrorism !

Plus, when our troops destroy military targets during an operation do we call them terrorists ?

[–] Trackmaster 12 years ago

No terrorism is when private citizens commit acts against countries. Country on country would a war genius.

I agree that calling them "terrorists" is a bit silly, but it's just the wrong classfication. They're still just as dangerous, and just as evil. I hope they don't get any leniancy.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] qofreason 8 years ago

I am not too keen when it comes property destruction on behalf of "Mother Earth," but I think there are solid arguments for direct action (i.e., "terrorism") regarding animals. To the extent ELFers are acting on behalf of sentient animals suffering habitat destruction, their tactics are justified.

Corporations routinely mistreat animals. Citizens are broadly supportive of this mistreatment (though we prefer not to see or think about what actually goes on), and the government rigorously enforces property rights -- that is, the right to treat sentient creatures *as* property.

Retaliation is understandable, and indeed this how some opposed slavery. It comes down to defending property, or defending the victims of that property.