It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Eco-Terrorists Suspected in House Fires

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:00 PM
Over forty homes under construction in a Maryland upscale subdivision were destroyed or damaged by fires which are being investigated as a well orchestrated case of eco-terrorism. Damage was estimated to be more than ten million dollars. Authorities have stated that the Earth Liberation Front can expect a visit by investigators concerning the fires in the very near future. Currently, investigators are seeking the driver of a blue van that was seen leaving the area around the time of the incident.
INDIAN HEAD, Md. -- More than a dozen expensive homes under construction were burned down early Monday in a suburban Washington housing development that had been criticized by environmentalists because it is next to a nature preserve, officials said.

An FBI agent said the fires may have been set by environmental extremists.

A dozen homes were destroyed and 29 others damaged near the state's Mattawoman Natural Environment Area. No injuries were reported. The damage was estimated at at least $10 million.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Faron Taylor, a deputy state fire marshal, said investigators believe fires were set in at least four of the homes, which were priced at $400,000 to $500,000. Taylor refused to say what led investigators to conclude it was arson.

"At this point, our knowledge of the methodology is shared by us and the perpetrator, and we don't want to share that with anyone else," Taylor said.

A Sierra Club report had called the development "quintessential sprawl" because it is far from existing infrastructure and "threatens a fragile wetland and important historical sites near the Chesapeake Bay."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This brand of terrorism is a growing trend around the country as lunatics seek to "protect" the environment from "urban sprawl," a neologism designed to create the image of a problem that does not exist. In this case, the incident seems to have been instigated by the proximity of the subdivision to a "magnolia bog."

There is simply no excuse for this type of behavior and it is time that congress began to treat these crimes as terrorist acts, rather than arson.

Related News Links:

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Banshee]

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:30 PM
While I certainly don’t condone the acts depicted here, I can understand the frustration that has lead to this point. Inconsistent enforcement of existing wetlands protection laws has lead to situations like this in a number of instances.

In addition, “Urban Sprawl” is hardly a new concept. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 stated in part:

(a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:37 PM
I strongly agree on this one Congress has to do something. In our area we had one group delay a new civic center claiming they saw an endangered snake. To make a long story short they did the environmental assement and it turned out that variety of snake never resided in the whole state let alone that one area.

The funny part of this is they lost the suit, the civic center has been built and is almosted finished looks great. Now the same group is claiming they saw the same darn variety of snake in the area where a new planned community had been approved about five miles west of the civic center. Hello People just how stuipid do you think people are?

Those Jerks will never stop, unless we demad they be sued for the costs they are forcing on communities and perhaps they should get some jail time, big jail time.

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:53 PM
Hmmm, more terrorists you say.

Are you really that willing to believe what comes from Washington agencies?

Do you think Washington insiders would balk at destroying a few homes to keep the idea of 'terrorism' alive?

I would fit perfectly with Corporate America's desire to be able to do ANYTHING they want ANYWHERE they want.

Who is the REAL villain here?

Skepticism of anything that comes from Washington is well in order.

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:33 PM

Actually these people were considered eco terrorist way before 9/11. They are nothing but tree hugging, animal loving people who do not want homes built on lands that hold the prestine look of what nature had intended long before man decided to capitolize on it by building mass subdivisions of homes. Example: "Wow, thats a very pretty mountain view", "Sprawl"great lets build 200 condos or 50 new home lots on it.

I personally would love to have a home built on the side of a mountain with gorgeous views, but now we have eco terrorists out thier who would rather set the homes on fire while risking burning down everything around it. My question is, if they burn it down and everything around it, wouldnt after the fire just make it that much easier to clear and create more urban sprawl???

Got to love peoples thinking, even eco terrorists, not so bright..

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 01:33 AM
I grew up in Oregon. I love trees. In [Western] Oregon it is like a forest gone wild. very primal. I now live near the Rockies, it is nice but the forests are much more tame here, less rainfall.

I live in a city. I keep all my trees. Im sure my neighbors would rather i have a more 'tame' yard, but it is the one i love. It has birds, squirrels, and cats. Why not make where you live the place you love instead of decimating the place you claim to love and turning it into a place you don't love. This just makes no sense to me. Maybe where you are is not the problem, maybe who you are is, ya think?

Blanketing the globe with human mono-culture seems rather short sighted to me. If you had other planets that could support other wild species I wouldn't like it, but at least they would exist somewhere.

People are not 'special' they are simply dominant. We have no special right to eliminate or exterminate other species. Ultimately if we don't exercise some caution the final victims of our 'success' will be ourselves.

The less people you have the more special and unique each one is. When people become so numerous they just become one more commodity. The more people there are it seems to me it brings out the worst in people.

I understand, you like/love those scenic natural places to drop a 3000 sqft home, but how natural and scenic is it going to be when half a million people are there living on top of one another? Add to that all the beautiful scenery you came to live in being paved over so one can drive some monster mega-mobile SUV. If you REALLY like it, work to preserve it, learn to live lightly upon it so it LASTS.

PS. Nature had/has no intent on how things should look or be That is completely up to us and whatever circumstances we encounter.

The funny thing is people with the 'big' picture in mind can't get other people's attention without raising at least a little hell.

I have also seen the devastation caused when greedy desperate timber holders mow down entire hill and mountainsides which turn to mudslides in the rain and irradicate salmon species.

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by shots
I strongly agree on this one Congress has to do something.

NEPA was passed in 1969. however, if you read that part of the act, it really does not state that anything needs to be done about urban sprawl. It just says that in effect “OK, we admit, this is a problem.”

The thing is, many people have the wrong idea of what property ownership means. Many people (including some judges) think that property ownership is the outright ownership and ability to control everything about, on or under a piece of land.

This is not true, nor has it ever been that way. The traditional view of property ownership is that like a bundle of stick. Each stick represents a right associated with that property. In medieval times, all rights were owned by the king. A property owner was subject to the bestowal or the removal of any of those rights at the whim of the sovereign.

Today, we no longer have a king, but the government is still considered “sovereign.” In addition, the “sovereign” (or the government) can not arbitrarily remove one of those rights (a “taking”) without just compensation to the property owner. (for extra points, you can tell me what part of the constitution covers this).

This is pretty clear cut, when the government wants to take your house to build an expressway. In the long run there is nothing you can do about it.

What of the situation when the government restricts your use of the property be defining what use can be made of it? This is the basis of environmental regulations. (and zoning laws for that matter).

Conservatives say that such laws represent “takings” and thus they deserve compensation for restrictions on the use of the land.

Liberals say that the principles of conservation supercede private ownership rights.

(OK, that is WAY oversimplified. So please, just take that as an abstraction and don’t jump all over me for it

most people can accept zoning laws, and can appreciate their usefulness. After all no one wants someone to open a junkyard in the middle of their residential neighborhood. Yet, many people have a different view of environmental laws.

One nexus of regulatory authority is the “commerce clause” which has been argued over extensively in courts.

One of the latest decisions by the SCOTUS, in 2001 (5 to 4, I bet you can guess who was on which side) struck down the regulatory authority that the Corp of Engineers was using to implement wetlands protection in isolated wetlands like the Magnolia bog described above.

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 05:28 PM
That's a fine explication of property laws, Howard, but the issue here is not conservation, which was a movement with common sense values of reciprocity between nature and mankind. The environmentalist movement which is a product of gross reification and pathological animism. Almost everyone does understand conservation and zoning laws, but the lunacy of environmentalism strikes the people who are told they can do nothing with their land.

Here in New Mexico, we have the problem of some minnow or something that even though it is preserved elsewhere in the state, we have a big fight between the farmers and the goofballs every year over water from the Rio Grande. Not only that, but we have had devastating fires in the bosque because environmental laws prevent thinning underbrush to spare the habitat of a bird or something that no one knows for sure has ever resided there.

The mayor said he was going to raise hell about it, but no one cares. It's better to have a million dollar home go up in flames than to step on a cockroach.

[edit on 04/12/9 by GradyPhilpott]

new topics

top topics


log in