Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Enviromentalist Terrorism??

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 03:40 PM
link   
This is on the FBI's most wanted list:

"Michael James Scarpitti is a known environmental activist, affiliated with the Earth Liberation Front, a domestic terrorist organization opposed to the destruction of the natural environment."

So, even enviromentalists are Terrorists now? What next? Feminist terrorism, hippy terrorism? The US government will use the word terrorist to catch whoever they want and do what they like to them, it seems. Weirdos.

FBI Most Wanted




posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 05:26 PM
link   
It's important to read the link posted here.
It's also important to include the relevant information as to just *why* he's wanted.


...wanted for his alleged involvement in an act of arson at a sand and gravel company in Portland, Oregon, in April, 2001. Additionally, Scarpitti is sought for alleged association with another act of arson in June, 2001.


If you're gonna burn stuff down, you are a criminal.
If an extremist committed arson in the name of Iraq or Al Qaida or some such, he/she would be considered a "terrorist," no?
This goes beyond protest and civil disobedience.

Here's his full wanted write-up:
www.fbi.gov...

Always look at the big picture.
-B.



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 05:37 PM
link   
But why label him a terrorist instead of just an arsonist? Do they call every assaultist and burgular a terrorist, after all they terrorize their victims do they not? What I'm saying that the FBi shouldn't tag everyone they want to catch with the Terrorist label just to give them extra rights.......



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee

If you're gonna burn stuff down, you are a criminal.


errrr...ok


So world governments are criminals for all the forests burn and chop down? So who's in the right here? I'm sorry thats a very weird statement, you might want to revise it.



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Terrorism is the correct term if this attempt to create fear and to send a message.

I think that any one who puts another humans life in danger. To save some trees needs there head checked and need to spend the rest of there lives in a padded cell were they provide the jackets for you.



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 06:15 PM
link   



I think that any one who puts another humans life in danger needs there head checked and need to spend the rest of there lives in a padded cell were they provide the jackets for you.


This is true. Now, who's up for grabbing Bush and Blair and escorting them........

Someone who wants to save trees is no different to someone who wants to save lives, so why the terrorist label?



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada


errrr...ok


So world governments are criminals for all the forests burn and chop down? So who's in the right here? I'm sorry thats a very weird statement, you might want to revise it.


Damn, John, that's somewhat tangental.


I don't want to get into whether chopping down/burning trees is wrong or right here, because that's a whole other topic in and of itself.
I will, however, clarify my earlier statement.
Instead of:
If you're gonna burn stuff down, you are a criminal.
I will instead say:
If you torch property that is legally owned by another person, you are a criminal.

And, in a similar vein, if you torch property that is legally owned by another person in the name of some movement or to intimidate/scare/harrass them because you don't like what they're doing, you are a kind of terrorist.

This guy did a Bad Thing. In fact, he did several Bad Things.
USE OF FIRE TO COMMIT A FELONY;
DESTRUCTION OF VEHICLES USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY MEANS OF FORCE;
INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY VIOLENCE;
USE OF AN INCENDIARY DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE DURING AND IN RELATION TO A CRIME OF VIOLENCE

I know this'll start a back-and-forth about recent US military action and its correlation to terrorism.
That, also, is another topic altogether.

In the terms of this thread, am I wrong to feel that Michael Scarpitti is a felon and an environmental terrorist?

-B.



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Wilful destruction of property, a crime? Yes.

Wilful destruction of property, an act of terror? No.

"Environmental terrorist" is an emotive term deliberately applied to individuals who go outside the law in support of their cause. It is intended to make you perceive the person in exactly the same hateful light as you are meant to see someone who hijacks a plane, shoots or bombs human targets, or uses innocent civilian lives as leverage to promote his political position.

"Terrorism" is very different to "arson" or "vandalism".

But "Terrorist" and "War on Terrorism" and "TIA" and other such terminology is being increasingly used to encompass a range of issues which, in the cold light of day, they are not meant to cover. That is a Stalin-like political agenda to be rid of all dissidents.



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 07:04 PM
link   
MA, thats what I was trying to say.........you worded it better though



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I was fine with the way you worded it too.




posted on Jul, 21 2003 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Hello, the enviros are the same ones who go in and release aids infected monkeys. They released rats with deadly viruses. They blew up a logging companies building. That is terrorism. A Islam guy lets loose anthrx, he a terrorist, a enviro lets loose monkeys from a lab that was testing anti aid drugs on a populated city, they terrorists.

PETA supports this, they fund almost every enviro/animal right group. They get people together for a break in. Heck, one time they destroyed a cancer place that was killing off cancer in leg/arms with a 85% ratio. Guess what? The computers and the research stuff was destroyed, they lost it all. So anyone who dies of cancer that starts in the arm and leg, thank PETA for it.(Thankfully the people working their were able to get going again, and while not as succesful, are doing better than 40%)



posted on Jul, 21 2003 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I'm not a fan of the Earth Liberation Front people in the slightest. over winter vacation in 1999, they tried to burn down a building where genetic research is carried out on my university's campus. the building was insured, but the damaged equipment was largely self-insured (getting actual insurance on the equipment that students are allowed to use is astronomical). guess who got to pay for the $2 million or so in equipment damages? students and taxpayers. sweet. so they're making college more expensive for me. I know, it's a rather personal and ranty sort of reason to dislike the ELF, but a legit one none the less.



posted on Jul, 22 2003 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Well I don't like the sound of this group either........but they didn't fly a plane into the WTC did they, so I do think they are just like any other criminal arsonist....just that, otherwise all criminals are terrorist as almost every crime terrorising someone.



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I do feel the man is a criminal, an arsonist and a terrorist, but the line between arson and terrorism can be very thin. Would you call a person lighting his neighbor's truck on fire over a fued terrorism? probably not. But, would you say that the KKK burning torches in people's yards is terrorism? Most likely yes.

i would define a terrorist as a person who on his own or as part of a group plans something which attempts to intentionally harm multiple people or destroy public property to cause a negative political, economical, or military impact.

Under this definition he is a terrorist and if the ELF is involved then I would say they are a terrorist group.



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by chebob
But why label him a terrorist instead of just an arsonist? Do they call every assaultist and burgular a terrorist, after all they terrorize their victims do they not? What I'm saying that the FBi shouldn't tag everyone they want to catch with the Terrorist label just to give them extra rights.......


because his crimes are done to produce fear for those in the industries that he targets. it isnt dont JUST to stop a certain company its done to be sent as a message for other companies as well. much like.....a terrorist!


of course setting fires on things goes against the very things they supposedly stand for, one of those things being cleaner air. how can they do that if they're burning things???? lol ELF is so ignorant.

that would be like peta killing cows to point out how wrong it is to eat meat or wear leather.



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 02:45 PM
link   
that would be like peta killing cows to point out how wrong it is to eat meat or wear leather.

No, not really. They take great pains to exclude themselves from the rules they intend to force on others. If a few mere contradictions aren't enough to worry about when pushing through a politcal agenda which is what most of these extremist groups are. Not saying that their members aren't genuine in their concern but the people guiding them oft have alternate motives such as politics and money. I think it was Lennon or maybe Stalin who refered to these people as "useful idiots" because they knew communism / socialism worked for only a select few at the top but the lesser masses had to be convinced to give the power to them. Often this was done with the illusion that the power never resided with the people to begin with by instumenting class warefare (see political scandalism forum for modern practice of this). The old divide and conquer strategy.



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
that would be like peta killing cows to point out how wrong it is to eat meat or wear leather.

No, not really. They take great pains to exclude themselves from the rules they intend to force on others. If a few mere contradictions aren't enough to worry about when pushing through a politcal agenda which is what most of these extremist groups are. Not saying that their members aren't genuine in their concern but the people guiding them oft have alternate motives such as politics and money. I think it was Lennon or maybe Stalin who refered to these people as "useful idiots" because they knew communism / socialism worked for only a select few at the top but the lesser masses had to be convinced to give the power to them. Often this was done with the illusion that the power never resided with the people to begin with by instumenting class warefare (see political scandalism forum for modern practice of this). The old divide and conquer strategy.



excellent post. food for thought. to go with my hamburger and leather shoes.



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
that would be like peta killing cows to point out how wrong it is to eat meat or wear leather.

No, not really. They take great pains to exclude themselves from the rules they intend to force on others. If a few mere contradictions aren't enough to worry about when pushing through a politcal agenda which is what most of these extremist groups are. Not saying that their members aren't genuine in their concern but the people guiding them oft have alternate motives such as politics and money. I think it was Lennon or maybe Stalin who refered to these people as "useful idiots" because they knew communism / socialism worked for only a select few at the top but the lesser masses had to be convinced to give the power to them. Often this was done with the illusion that the power never resided with the people to begin with by instumenting class warefare (see political scandalism forum for modern practice of this). The old divide and conquer strategy.


I think thats succesfuly stopped the thread in it's tracks..........





new topics




 
0

log in

join