11 People Indicted in Ecoterrorism Plot

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟37,952.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I fail to understand why Vandalism because it's fun, or becuse you don't like someone is still just vandalism while Vandalism because you don't think a bussiness should be doing what it's doing rises to the level of what happened on September 11th, especially when we consider that no one has ever been killed or even hurt in an "eco-terrorist" plot.

It seems to me that the health and welfare of bussiness in this country has become a higher priority than human life itself. Should torching an SUV bring about a penalty greater than murder? I have no problem throwing these guys in jail if thier found guilty of arson and vandalism for the crimes of arson and vandalism, let's reserve the title terrorist for people who are actually willing to hurt and kill other human beings.
 
Upvote 0

Thirst_For_Knowledge

I Am A New Title
Jan 20, 2005
6,609
340
41
Michigan
Visit site
✟8,524.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
JPPT1974 said:
Since September 11th, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the USA.
As border and security has increased.

How many were there before September 11th?

I mean, the nonChristian type of terrorist attack? I can only think of two (there may be one or two more that I'm not aware of) terrorist attacks in the USA by nonChristians. Looking at history, it's not surprising that there hasn't been one since 911. They don't happen.
 
Upvote 0

ChrisB803

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2004
650
49
44
Vancouver, WA
Visit site
✟8,544.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
thirstforknowledge said:
How many were there before September 11th?

I mean, the nonChristian type of terrorist attack? I can only think of two (there may be one or two more that I'm not aware of) terrorist attacks in the USA by nonChristians. Looking at history, it's not surprising that there hasn't been one since 911. They don't happen.

What's with the intimation that certain terrorist attacks are "Christian"? I don't think there's ever been a true Christian (that is to say, "Follower of Christ") who has committed an act of terrorism. Plenty of nutjobs who use religion to justify their insanity, but not true Christians in any sense of the word.
 
Upvote 0

ChrisB803

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2004
650
49
44
Vancouver, WA
Visit site
✟8,544.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ACougar said:
I fail to understand why Vandalism because it's fun, or becuse you don't like someone is still just vandalism while Vandalism because you don't think a bussiness should be doing what it's doing rises to the level of what happened on September 11th, especially when we consider that no one has ever been killed or even hurt in an "eco-terrorist" plot.

It seems to me that the health and welfare of bussiness in this country has become a higher priority than human life itself. Should torching an SUV bring about a penalty greater than murder? I have no problem throwing these guys in jail if thier found guilty of arson and vandalism for the crimes of arson and vandalism, let's reserve the title terrorist for people who are actually willing to hurt and kill other human beings.

They are just lucky no one was killed in their attacks... The actions were aggregious enough that someone might have been killed, and certainly human lives were put in danger.

Besides, the definition of terrorism doesn't just include someone who takes another human life. It's just the act of causing terror for the sake of either forwarding a purpose, or just creating panic amongst people. The DC snipers were terrorists because they intentionally caused terror. I think the ELF people are terrorists for the same reason, despite the fact people weren't killed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟37,952.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
My understanding is that ALF/ELF go out of thier way to avoide harming another human being. There is no reason to ear being physicly harmed by ALF/ELF, thier aiming at the wallets of those they oppose... nothing else.

How can we justify not charging people who bomb Cuban jetliners, and bomb hotels as terrorists, while people who go out of thier way not to hurt anyone have the book thrown at them?

http://www.counterpunch.org/pertierra01062006.html
http://www.narconews.com/Issue40/article1541.html




ChrisB803 said:
They are just lucky no one was killed in their attacks... The actions were aggregious enough that someone might have been killed, and certainly human lives were put in danger.


Besides, the definition of terrorism doesn't just include someone who takes another human life. It's just the act of causing terror for the sake of either forwarding a purpose, or just creating panic amongst people. The DC snipers were terrorists because they intentionally caused terror. I think the ELF people are terrorists for the same reason, despite the fact people weren't killed.
 
Upvote 0

Kripost

Senior Veteran
Mar 23, 2004
2,085
84
44
✟2,681.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
ChrisB803 said:
What's with the intimation that certain terrorist attacks are "Christian"? I don't think there's ever been a true Christian (that is to say, "Follower of Christ") who has committed an act of terrorism. Plenty of nutjobs who use religion to justify their insanity, but not true Christians in any sense of the word.

Then again, the definition of the word 'true Christain' is flexible enough that it can be said that there has never been a true Christian (see no-True-Scotsman).
 
Upvote 0

ChrisB803

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2004
650
49
44
Vancouver, WA
Visit site
✟8,544.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Kripost said:
Then again, the definition of the word 'true Christain' is flexible enough that it can be said that there has never been a true Christian (see no-True-Scotsman).

I gave you my definition: Those who follow the teachings of Christ. By that definition no one who takes a human life out of anger or hate can be a true follower of Christ.

Your choice of language demonstrates a marked bias in your thinking which is obviously based in ignorance rather than reality.
 
Upvote 0