Aspen arson
Buzzard
that did $12M damage. I can understand the frustration when working
through "the system" fails to produce the desired results (it seems that
a court had recently greenlighted an Aspen expansion that would have
impacted habitat for a planned reintroduction of the lynx), and I
regard Aspen and other high-end ski resorts with disdain, but to torch a
major ski lodge as a protest??? What if someone were killed? Apparently
the "Earth Liberation Front" is positively gleeful, and warns of future
similar actions if it deems them necessary. This ain't monkeywrenching,
this is big-time criminal behavior done in the name of
environmentalism. While it has only been a couple of days, I hope to
see responsible environmental organizations stand up and renounce such
tactics, and maybe contribute to a reward for the arrest and conviction
of the persons involved.
BTW, anyone keeping tabs on Vandeman? This sounds like the kind of
kookiness his ilk might be involved in....
Lorin John
aka Buzzard
Bill Kirk
Hmmmm......didn't the fire let all sort of toxins into the environment.
Just my US$.02, or CDN$.013.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Kirk
bc...@earthlink.net
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human
accomplishment an incredible miracle.".....John Stapp
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
****DELETE THE NO SPAM TO REPLY****
Randall S. Smith
wrote:
> I was surprised nigh unto stunned when I read about the arson at Aspen
> that did $12M damage. I can understand the frustration when working
> through "the system" fails to produce the desired results (it seems that
> a court had recently greenlighted an Aspen expansion that would have
> impacted habitat for a planned reintroduction of the lynx),
Actually, the expansion would not have impacted any habitat for the
planned reintroduction of the lynx. It would have impacted habitat where
the Colorado lynx was last reported, some 25 years ago. Colorado Wildlife
officials are planning to reintroduce about 80 Canadian and Alaskan lynxes
to the wild in Colorado sometime next year. The areas for the planned
reintroduction include the San Juans, areas in NW Colorado, and possibly
RMNP. Vail is not being considered because of the I-70 corridor running
through the habitat areas.
Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes. Circumventing
the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American way.
RS
--
Dr. Randall S. Smith | Cat, n. A soft, indestructible automaton
Proligo, LLC | provided by nature to be kicked when
Boulder, CO 80301 | things go wrong in the domestic circle.
| - A. Bierce
* Views stated herein are generally acknowledged to be aberrations of nature* e-mail: xer...@ares.csd.net
JM
: I was surprised nigh unto stunned when I read about the arson at Aspen
: that did $12M damage.
Actually, it was Vail, not Aspen. (Not that it makes a
difference.)
John
--
_________________________________________________________________
*** To send me e-mail, remove the "fake" from my user name. ***
_________________________________________________________________
ri...@kana.stanford.edu
> : I was surprised nigh unto stunned when I read about the arson at Aspen
> : that did $12M damage.
> Actually, it was Vail, not Aspen. (Not that it makes a
> difference.)
$12M in damage in Aspen might be a little smoke damage in your garage :-)
(Aspen has the most expensive houses in the USA.)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Thomas Baker
>In article <3630F9E2...@prodigy.net>, Buzzard <Buzz...@prodigy.net>
>wrote:
>
>> through "the system" fails to produce the desired results (it seems that
>> a court had recently greenlighted an Aspen expansion that would have
>> impacted habitat for a planned reintroduction of the lynx),
>
>Actually, the expansion would not have impacted any habitat for the
>planned reintroduction of the lynx. It would have impacted habitat where
>the Colorado lynx was last reported, some 25 years ago. Colorado Wildlife
>officials are planning to reintroduce about 80 Canadian and Alaskan lynxes
>to the wild in Colorado sometime next year. The areas for the planned
>reintroduction include the San Juans, areas in NW Colorado, and possibly
>RMNP. Vail is not being considered because of the I-70 corridor running
>through the habitat areas.
>
category III expansion. It turns out that the area is much more important as
a breeding and birthing ground for elk.
>Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
>that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes. Circumventing
>the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American way.
>
While there was an e-mail in which the ELF has "claimed" responsibility. It
has not been verified and the authorities are not saying anything other than
they are looking into it.
>RS
>
Thomas Baker
tba...@holly.colostate.edu
King Pineapple
<70tifa$9c9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> > : I was surprised nigh unto stunned when I read about the arson at
Aspen
> > : that did $12M damage.
>
> > difference.)
>
> $12M in damage in Aspen might be a little smoke damage in your garage :-)
> (Aspen has the most expensive houses in the USA.)
Yeah, maybe, but this was along the top of the mountain! I'm as much of a
tree hugger as anyone, but this is terrorism, pure and simple. One thing
not mentioned in the posts here is that the alleged perpetrators also
warned people to stay away from Vail this season for their own safety.
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
Bill Kirk <bc...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3631DC1B...@earthlink.net>...
> Just my US$.02, or CDN$.013.
You have that backward...
CDN $.02 ~ US $.013
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
Randall S. Smith <xer...@ares.csd.net> wrote in article
<xerxes2-2410...@ppp35.csd.net>...
> Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
> that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes. Circumventing
> the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American
way.
Tell that to the Christian Right extremist Republican dupes (wow, that is
fun!)...
rangrrik
So, the fact that anti abortion terrorists break the law means it is
okay for left-wing environmental terrorists to do it? Are you REALLY
wanting to say that?
Greg Rose
: Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
: that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes.
Unless someone died it is not terrorism, it is vandalism.
Not defending anyone, just pointing out that terrorism involves deliberately
targeting innocent victims to make a political statement. That does no
appear to be the case here.
: Circumventing
: the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American way.
That's not true at all. Read your history books and you'll soon realize
that all kinds of extra-legal activities are a big part of the American
Way. Violence is as American as Apple Pie.
--
greg rose
My web page is at http://black.kilchis.com:8080/
Greg Rose
: Yeah, maybe, but this was along the top of the mountain! I'm as much of a
: tree hugger as anyone, but this is terrorism, pure and simple.
Well, I already corrected someone else on this but I'll remind you also...
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent individuals to make
a political statement. It's vandalism when property is the target.
: One thing
: not mentioned in the posts here is that the alleged perpetrators also
: warned people to stay away from Vail this season for their own safety.
Then in that case they are vandals, not terrorists. Terrorists wouldn't
warn anyone, they'd just blow them up a la the Oklahoma City bombing.
Again, I'm not defending the particular action.
Chris Charles
property. Even chickens have to be raised somewhere, but I'm sure the owners
would sell out for the right price and locate elsewhere. If the objectors are
unwilling to purchase it but don't want the guy who did so to use it as he
wishes,, they are wanting something for nothing.
grennels wrote:
> Here in Ohio there is an agri-corp that wants to install facilities to
> house
> 18,000,000 (thats MILLION) chickens in a 6 mile radius. How would you like
> THAT down the road from your home. The home in which you have
> invested much of your financial and emotional capital. A home where your
> family may have lived for generations. A home where you have raised or are
> raising a family. Do you have ANY say in whether this will be allowed
> to ruin your life?? Apparently NOT in Ohio! Thank God I don't live next
> door
> to this chicken sh*t, fly maggot and beetle circus. But if one did, it
> would have to conjure visions of kerosine and matches. Anything goes in
> the name of $$$$. It's the American Way!
>
> rangrrik <rang...@leading.net> wrote in article
> <363399...@leading.net>...
> > Hannah Family wrote:
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dna Dan
> > >
> > > Randall S. Smith <xer...@ares.csd.net> wrote in article
> > > <xerxes2-2410...@ppp35.csd.net>...
> > >
> > > > Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I
> hope
> > > > that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes.
> Circumventing
> > > > the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American
> > > way.
> > >
Lisa
and uproar. But that's another thread.
grennels
Mary Malmros
>that did $12M damage.
Minor (?) quibble: it was Vail, not Aspen.
>I can understand the frustration when working
>through "the system" fails to produce the desired results (it seems that
>a court had recently greenlighted an Aspen expansion that would have
>impacted habitat for a planned reintroduction of the lynx), and I
>regard Aspen and other high-end ski resorts with disdain, but to torch a
>major ski lodge as a protest??? What if someone were killed? Apparently
>the "Earth Liberation Front" is positively gleeful, and warns of future
>similar actions if it deems them necessary. This ain't monkeywrenching,
>this is big-time criminal behavior done in the name of
>environmentalism.
Yes, it is. It was a pointless and foolish act as well. I don't know
about the top of Vail; I do know that much of Colorado is pretty dry,
and I would think an arson fire would stand a good chance of destroying
the very habitat that the "Earth Liberation Front" claims to want to
protect. The destruction of the buildings, beyond destruction of
property, could have endangered human life -- in fact, arguably it
did and will continue to endanger human life, since one of the buildings
destroyed was a ski patrol building. What impact is this going to
have on rescue operations in the future? I don't know, and I'm
sure that ELF didn't know and wasn't thinking of when they set those
fires.
Idjits.
>While it has only been a couple of days, I hope to
>see responsible environmental organizations stand up and renounce such
>tactics, and maybe contribute to a reward for the arrest and conviction
>of the persons involved.
AFAIK, that's already happened. Organizations and individuals have
spoken against this action. Add me to the list -- hell yes, I'm
an environmentalist; hell no, I'm not a part of those morons, and I'd
turn 'em over in a second if I knew who they were. I hope they end
up busting rocks.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"They write books that contradict the rocks..."
Stephen W. Anderson
rural North Carolina. Both of them produce an awful lot of waste and stench.
We control noxious activities like that with the business licensing system.
There are as always very strong pressures to secure the economic development
such installations bring, but if the local folks oppose a given plan
strongly enough then economic development be hanged. The plans are killed.
Check with your legislative and local representatives to find out if Ohio
law empowers your county to require any operating or utilities connection
permits for such a production facility. If so the county commissioners can
refuse to allow the installation to go forward.
If your counties cannot prevent development their people don't want then it
may be too late to stop these chicken houses. You can sure get to work to
pass a law capable of stopping future ones, though.
Either way you can't blame this on the rest of us. It's not America's
problem, it's yours, and there are ways to deal with it.
--
Stephen W. Anderson
Rocky Mount, NC
grennels wrote in message
<01be00a5$bde72ac0$5b91...@grennels.nwonline.net>...
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
Mary Malmros <mal...@shore.net> wrote in article
<711tvn$d...@northshore.shore.net>...
> Yes, it is. It was a pointless and foolish act as well.
Very probably true.
> I don't know
> about the top of Vail; I do know that much of Colorado is pretty dry,
> and I would think an arson fire would stand a good chance of destroying
> the very habitat that the "Earth Liberation Front" claims to want to
> protect.
Here I take exception with the concept "destroy". Fires don't really
destroy anything except maybe human constructions. Read up on "succession"
and there are also very good books out on the Yellowstone fires of 8 or so
years ago. In some areas, fires improve the health of the environment,
making them more productive.
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
rangrrik <rang...@leading.net> wrote in article
<363399...@leading.net>...
> Hannah Family wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Dna Dan
> >
> > Randall S. Smith <xer...@ares.csd.net> wrote in article
> > <xerxes2-2410...@ppp35.csd.net>...
> >
> > > Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I
hope
> > > that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes.
Circumventing
> > > the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American
> > way.
> >
> > Tell that to the Christian Right extremist Republican dupes (wow, that
is
> > fun!)...
>
> So, the fact that anti abortion terrorists break the law means it is
> okay for left-wing environmental terrorists to do it? Are you REALLY
> wanting to say that?
NOTE: Quoted in full for those of us who forget some or all of some posts
of the 50 - 100 threads we post to...
"Reads it"
Please read BOTH sentences of the original post before replying.
Thank you.
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
Stephen W. Anderson <swaDELET...@rockymountnc.com> wrote in article
<7120fq$c3$1...@news.shelby.net>...
> Big poultry and hog operations are common enterprises here in relatively
> rural North Carolina. Both of them produce an awful lot of waste and
stench.
> We control noxious activities like that with the business licensing
system.
> There are as always very strong pressures to secure the economic
development
> such installations bring, but if the local folks oppose a given plan
> strongly enough then economic development be hanged. The plans are
killed.
Interesting examples. I was personally thinking of two instances:
1) The only reported fatality from purposeful tree spiking (as opposed to
the Vietnam experience) was from a Republican upset at the Forest service
logging up to his property line...
2) The entire flap over the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest area.
The pig/chicken examples above are just as cogent, tho.
rangrrik
A very obnoxious way of avoiding the question. Try a straight answer
next time.
X
> Randall S. Smith <xer...@ares.csd.net> wrote in article
> <xerxes2-2410...@ppp35.csd.net>...
>
> > Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
> > that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes. Circumventing
> > the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American
> way.
>
> Tell that to the Christian Right extremist Republican dupes (wow, that is
> fun!)...
Maybe you should first tell it to the Clinton eco-terrorists
who don't think the law should apply to them, whether its burning
down other people's private property or lying to criminal grand
juries and obstructing justice.
Stephen W. Anderson
Or do you have some more subtle layer of plot in mind?
--
Stephen W. Anderson
Rocky Mount, NC
Eugene Miya wrote in message <7132n4$7...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
>Someplace has to be a sacriface area.
>Who ever did it, has to realize that.
Les Jones
(Greg Rose) wrote:
> Randall S. Smith (xer...@ares.csd.net) wrote:
>
> : Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
> : that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes.
>
> Unless someone died it is not terrorism, it is vandalism.
So if a bomb or a fire kills someone it's terrorism, if not it's vandalism?
That's a mighty sharp line. The fact that no one was killed this time
doesn't doesn't mean someone won't die the next time.
If the intent is to make political change through destruction, I think it's
fair to label arson as terrorism.
--
+ Les Jones + 56K Modem Home Page + http://www.56k.com/ +
-= email address modified. with Pig Latin! =-
Randall S. Smith
> Unless someone died it is not terrorism, it is vandalism.
Ah, I see. So every time a bus blows up in Israel and no one dies, it's
simply vandalism.
> Not defending anyone, just pointing out that terrorism involves deliberately
> targeting innocent victims to make a political statement. That does no
> appear to be the case here.
And what of vandalism to make a political statement. Don't tell me that
the destruction of $12MM worth of property didn't target someone. And,
just to play a "what if" game, what if a firefighter had died trying to
put out the blaze? Is is still just vandalism? After all, the ELF did not
intend to hurt anyone...
> Randall S. Smith (xer...@ares.csd.net) wrote:
> : Circumventing
> : the legal and political process through terrorism is not the American way.
> That's not true at all. Read your history books and you'll soon realize
> that all kinds of extra-legal activities are a big part of the American
> Way. Violence is as American as Apple Pie.
Yes, violence is American (actually, very much a part of human nature),
while terrorism is not. We must make the distinction between terrorism and
extra-legal activities. True, terrorism is an extra-legal activity, but
AFAIK it is not a condoned method of political change in this country.
Prehaps you could prove me wrong and cite specific examples.
Getting back to your claim that the action of the ELF was vandalism, not
terrorism, I contend that you are wrong. In the Random House Unabridged
Dictionary Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to
coerce, especially for political purposes." Vandalism is defined as
"deliberate mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property."
What's the difference between the two? Political purposes. Seems to me
that vandalism can be used in a terroristic fashion, provided it is being
used to coerce someone for political ends. However, most vandalism in
simply mischievous in nature. As I seem to recall, the ELF had a political
agenda behind the destruction of property. Hence, the action of the ELF
was terrorism albeit achieved through an act of vandalism. QED
Eugene Miya
>that did $12M damage.
It was Vail. (3.0)
Not that other fine place.
That I occasionally go to.....
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
rangrrik <rang...@leading.net> wrote in article
> > Circumventing
> > > > > the legal and political process through terrorism is not the
American
> > > > way.
> > > >
> > > > Tell that to the Christian Right extremist Republican dupes (wow,
that
> > is
> > > > fun!)...
> > >
> > > So, the fact that anti abortion terrorists break the law means it is
> > > okay for left-wing environmental terrorists to do it? Are you REALLY
> > > wanting to say that?
> > "Reads it"
> >
> > Please read BOTH sentences of the original post before replying.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
>
> A very obnoxious way of avoiding the question. Try a straight answer
> next time.
NOTE: Quoted this time because rangrrik might need a prompt.
OK. Since you seem to have a hard time following a logical sequence, and
make incorrect inferences based on flawed logic, I will answer your
non-sequiturs:
"NO". and "I never..."
Now, please tell me how you got from "a" to "z" without first touching the
rest of the alphabet...
ZenMarmot
Randall S. Smith (xer...@ares.csd.net) wrote:
: Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
: that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes.
According to Websters:Unless someone died it is not terrorism, it is vandalism.
terrorism:= the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
vandalism:= willful or malicious destruction or defacement
of public or
private property.
An act of vandalism meant to invoke terror to coerce the builders in
Vail
to stop what they're doing is TERRORISM.
-- Arno G agra...@nrao.edu
Chip Mefford
cranks folks up as Terrorism, and the
word will loose its meaning, as it pretty
much already has.
david mann
: while terrorism is not. We must make the distinction between terrorism and
: extra-legal activities. True, terrorism is an extra-legal activity, but
: AFAIK it is not a condoned method of political change in this country.
AFAIK, it is not a "condoned" method of political change in ANY country.
: Prehaps you could prove me wrong and cite specific examples.
In the US, we had the Boston Tea Party -- provided that you
agree that vandalism == terrorism.
The recent peace accords in Ireland and on the middle east
seem to suggest that terrorism works. I doubt that there would
have been any change in the status quo if not for the IRA or PLA.
Greg Rose
: Greg Rose wrote:
: > Randall S. Smith (xer...@ares.csd.net) wrote:
: >
: > : Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
: > : that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes.
: >
: > Unless someone died it is not terrorism, it is vandalism.
: According to Websters:
: terrorism:= the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
And what is terror? I still say that terror involves the deliberate
targeting of innocent people, not property.
: vandalism:= willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or
: private property.
: An act of vandalism meant to invoke terror to coerce the builders in Vail
: to stop what they're doing is TERRORISM.
Well, that's cool how you turned vandalism into terrorism, but it doesn't
necessarily follow unless you can show that "vandalism" == "terror".
While some people in the Vail incident might be angry that their
property was damaged, do they live in terror of their lives now?
When the US bombed the plant in Somalia was that terrorism? I mean,
we used destruction of property to coerce the parties in question into
stopping what they're doing. Was it even vandalism? Because a gov't
initiates violence, does that mean it's OK?
Be careful of how you define things.
Again, I'm not defending the vandals who burned down the restaurant
in Vail. If caught they should be punished and I'm sure they know
that they will be.
Mary Malmros
Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>ZenMarmot (agra...@nrao.edu) wrote:
>
>: Greg Rose wrote:
>
>: > Randall S. Smith (xer...@ares.csd.net) wrote:
>: >
>: > : Long and short is that the ELF action was blatant terrorism, and I hope
>: > : that those involved are caught and tried for their crimes.
>: >
>: > Unless someone died it is not terrorism, it is vandalism.
>
>: According to Websters:
>: terrorism:= the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
>
>And what is terror? I still say that terror involves the deliberate
>targeting of innocent people, not property.
Excuse me, but...isn't this all a lot of mental masturbation? Forget
the labels, look at the act. I haven't heard anyone yet say that
they thought it was a good idea -- but why exactly did it happen, and
how could it have been prevented, short of giving the perps everything
they wanted? Would even that have stopped them, or were they going to
find a venue to make their point no matter what?
david mann
: Excuse me, but...isn't this all a lot of mental masturbation?
Perhaps. But it's useful mental masturbation.
: Forget
: the labels, look at the act. I haven't heard anyone yet say that
: they thought it was a good idea -- but why exactly did it happen, and
: how could it have been prevented, short of giving the perps everything
: they wanted? Would even that have stopped them, or were they going to
: find a venue to make their point no matter what?
I won't say that it was a *good* idea but I can say that it
was entirely predictable that something along this line was
bound to happen. While the American dream has always included
the ideals of religous/ethical tollerance, I dare say that
the country has never seen a more diverse, pluralistic
range of ideals.
It seems to me tha civil disobedience happens when a group
feels disenfranchised from the system. After this happens,
the next question is not is it violent or not since
all civil disobedience is violent to the current
civil structures. The only question is how violent.
So now we are looking at civil disobedience acts coming
from all ranges of thee political spectrum and covering
the full range of violence. Among others we have:
1) Pro-life activists bombing clinics and killing doctors,
2) Militant anti-Federalists blowing up Federal buildings,
3) Gay rights activist like ActUp engaging in sit-ins,
4) Environmental activists engaging in sit-ins, monkey-wrenching
and now, arson.
I'm not suggestiong taht all forms of civil-disobedience
are the same and interchangable. But I am suggestiong
that we should not be surprised when we see escalations
in the vioolence when so-called non-violent means fail.
And before we write off some arsons as being crooks,
creeps or wackos, lets all look at our list of heros
and be sure to acknowledge those that were violent.
Jim Brown was a vigalante for the cause of abolition.
Was he wrong?
Mary Malmros
david mann <dam...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) wrote:
>: Excuse me, but...isn't this all a lot of mental masturbation?
>
>Perhaps. But it's useful mental masturbation.
Honestly, I can't see the use in it except for the participants'
own amusement. Apart from that, what good does the argumentation
about what label to call it do?
>: Forget
>: the labels, look at the act. I haven't heard anyone yet say that
>: they thought it was a good idea -- but why exactly did it happen, and
>: how could it have been prevented, short of giving the perps everything
>: they wanted? Would even that have stopped them, or were they going to
>: find a venue to make their point no matter what?
>
>I won't say that it was a *good* idea but I can say that it
>was entirely predictable that something along this line was
>bound to happen. While the American dream has always included
>the ideals of religous/ethical tollerance, I dare say that
>the country has never seen a more diverse, pluralistic
>range of ideals.
So, it's a foregone conclusion that the "free marketplace of
ideas" ultimately leads to people playing out their ideas,
even at the expense of others? What a depressing thought.
>It seems to me tha civil disobedience happens when a group
>feels disenfranchised from the system. After this happens,
>the next question is not is it violent or not since
>all civil disobedience is violent to the current
>civil structures. The only question is how violent.
I think there are more questions than that. In my mind, there
is the question of whether someone who answers force (in
this case, the right of a landowner to do what they want with
their land despite the wishes of others who may be negatively
impacted) with force (in the form of an arson attack) has
any claim to the moral high ground. Does anyone who doesn't
get their way have a legitimate claim when they say that
they've been "disenfranchised"? Is it automatically right
to dignify the actions of someone who refuses to accept
that they can't have their way with the term "civil
disobedience"?
>I'm not suggestiong taht all forms of civil-disobedience
>are the same and interchangable. But I am suggestiong
>that we should not be surprised when we see escalations
>in the vioolence when so-called non-violent means fail.
I think we should be both surprised and appalled. Didn't
any of these children ever go to kindergarten? In
kindergarten, you learn that sometimes you don't get to
sit on the top of the jungle gym. If your "non-violent
means" of getting the other kid off the top of the jungle
gym fail, and you resort to violent means (because you've
been disenfranchised, dammit), then that is neither a
logical nor an acceptable outcome. Not for human beings.
I have a rather strong suspicion that, at bottom, the Earth
Liberation Front is not terribly concerned about the lynx.
Their action didn't protect any lynx habitat; all they did
was kick over the anthill. My bet is that they're using
the Vail action as an excuse, not a reason. They just
wanted to blow shit up.
Greg Rose
: Greg Rose said:
: >
: >And what is terror? I still say that terror involves the deliberate
: >targeting of innocent people, not property.
: Excuse me, but...isn't this all a lot of mental masturbation?
No, not at all. Unless you want to call a lot of our American Forefathers
terrorists. Discerning whether the act was terrorism or vandalism will
go along way towards what kind of punishment the perpetrators would
receive if caught. If it was vandalism then prison will be the
result, OTOH terrorism is an act punishable by death. So, I'd say it
isn't mental masturbation, it's a very cogent consideration. Certainly,
if the issue comes up in court it won't be a case of mental masturbation.
: Forget
: the labels, look at the act.
I thought that's what I was doing. The act was vandalism. Vandalism
to make a political statement is quite a bit different than blowing
up innocent people to make a political statement. If you can't
discern the difference then I don't know what to say. Tell me,
were the unruly college students of the '60's who rioted and occupied
university offices terrorists or vandals? They were using vandalism
and even some mild forms of violence to "coerce" a certain type of
action on the part of the university leadership, no?
: I haven't heard anyone yet say that
: they thought it was a good idea -- but why exactly did it happen,
You'd have to ask the people who did it why it happened. I can't
read their minds.
: and
: how could it have been prevented, short of giving the perps everything
: they wanted?
Perhaps some things are inevitable given the choices that people make.
We all make choices about how we're going to live. Some people will
not tolerate the choices other people make, or they feel that the
way other people have chosen to live is intolerant of their own
choices as to how to live. There aren't any easy answers. You
pick and choose and then live with the consequences.
: Would even that have stopped them, or were they going to
: find a venue to make their point no matter what?
I don't know. Again, I'd suggest that you ask the people who did it.
david mann
: In article <7157hc$4q9$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
: david mann <dam...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
: >I won't say that it was a *good* idea but I can say that it
: >was entirely predictable that something along this line was
: >bound to happen. While the American dream has always included
: >the ideals of religous/ethical tollerance, I dare say that
: >the country has never seen a more diverse, pluralistic
: >range of ideals.
: So, it's a foregone conclusion that the "free marketplace of
: ideas" ultimately leads to people playing out their ideas,
: even at the expense of others? What a depressing thought.
Well, I think the ground is ripe for it. While we've (we ==
Americans) have a long history of religuous plurality,
it is nothing like what it was. A mere 200 years ago
we could at least agree on a common language -- "God",
"Creator", "inallienable rights" -- despite disparate
beliefs. Can you even concieve of the US Constitution
being written today using that language? I can't.
Add to this widespread low voter turn out and I think
it is safe to say that Americans are more diverse andthus have
more points of conflict while at the same time having
less faith in the system of democracy. It isn't
pretty. I blame big money + mass media but thats
another rant.
: >civil structures. The only question is how violent.
: I think there are more questions than that. In my mind, there
: is the question of whether someone who answers force (in
: this case, the right of a landowner to do what they want with
: their land despite the wishes of others who may be negatively
: impacted) with force (in the form of an arson attack) has
: any claim to the moral high ground.
In a hyper-pluralistic society, how can anyone point
to ANY high ground? Really? All this talk about rights
and we can't even agree on a language to discuss morality!
Is it wrong to burn a building? If so, says who?
: they've been "disenfranchised"? Is it automatically right
: to dignify the actions of someone who refuses to accept
: that they can't have their way with the term "civil
: disobedience"?
I'm not sure that we can condemn the act any more
than we can dignify it. These sorts of moral judgements
can only be made from some moral framework. I know
my own moral framework and will identify it as
as Christian. Now, I disagree with a lot of what
gets bantered about under the guise of Christian
morality, especially by groups like the Christian
Coallition, but at least my Christian brothers and
sisters have a common framework within which to
work things out. But if folks are willing to toss
out out Christian morality and then they want me
to get excited about some heinous event, I need
to aske, on what basis is thing bad? Countless
heros have died while waging violent protest
against what I would call evil regimes.Were they
wrong for picking up the sword? If so, why?
As a group excercise, we should all rent "The
Mission" tonight and watch it before we go much
further.
: In kindergarten, you learn that sometimes you don't get to
: sit on the top of the jungle gym. If your "non-violent
There are big fights over what kinds of morality should
be tought in kindergarten.
Greg Rose
: In article <7157hc$4q9$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
: david mann <dam...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
: >: Excuse me, but...isn't this all a lot of mental masturbation?
: >
: >Perhaps. But it's useful mental masturbation.
: Honestly, I can't see the use in it except for the participants'
: own amusement. Apart from that, what good does the argumentation
: about what label to call it do?
By calling vandalism terrorism you cheapen the very real acts of
terrorism that have occurred. What? Isn't vandalism a bad enough
thing for you people who think this was terrorism? Let's leave
the terrorist labels for people who truly deserve them. I daresay
that if they catch the perpetrators and take them to court, terrorism
will not be the charge. Vandalism, maliscious destruction of property,
etc... but not terrorism. I've seen people who destroyed animal
research labs caught and prosecuted and they were not labeled terrorists.
Vandals and extremists? Sure.
[snip]
: So, it's a foregone conclusion that the "free marketplace of
: ideas" ultimately leads to people playing out their ideas,
: even at the expense of others?
In the real world? Yes.
: What a depressing thought.
OK. Depressing thoughts are a part of everyday life.
[snip]
: I think there are more questions than that. In my mind, there
: is the question of whether someone who answers force (in
: this case, the right of a landowner to do what they want with
: their land despite the wishes of others who may be negatively
: impacted) with force (in the form of an arson attack) has
: any claim to the moral high ground.
You fail to consider the power of rationalization. Kinda like the
anti-abortion folks who justify the killing of abortion doctors
because they're "pro-life".
: Does anyone who doesn't
: get their way have a legitimate claim when they say that
: they've been "disenfranchised"?
Depends on who's defining legitimate that day.
: Is it automatically right
: to dignify the actions of someone who refuses to accept
: that they can't have their way with the term "civil
: disobedience"?
I myself have not seen anyone calling this "civil disobedience". If
they are calling it civil disobedience then I'd disagree. To me
civil disobedience is peaceful and non-destructive.
: I think we should be both surprised and appalled.
If you read the newspapers and history books you shouldn't be surprised.
Appalled? I'm appalled every time a read a newspaper. A good friend's
94 year old grandmother was just murdered over in The Dalles over a
burglary. I'm appalled. Anybody who keeps up with what's going on
around the world should be appalled all the time.
: Didn't
: any of these children ever go to kindergarten? In
: kindergarten, you learn that sometimes you don't get to
: sit on the top of the jungle gym. If your "non-violent
: means" of getting the other kid off the top of the jungle
: gym fail, and you resort to violent means (because you've
: been disenfranchised, dammit), then that is neither a
: logical nor an acceptable outcome. Not for human beings.
In your opinion. Your views of how human beings should be are
not necessarily shared by anyone else. I know we'd like to
think that our own views of right and wrong are shared by others,
but that is often just not the case.
: I have a rather strong suspicion that, at bottom, the Earth
: Liberation Front is not terribly concerned about the lynx.
Perhaps. Maybe they're so caught up in the righteousness of their
cause that they're losing sight of the bigger picture. Like the
guy who put the sniper's bullet into the New York abortion doctor.
: Their action didn't protect any lynx habitat; all they did
: was kick over the anthill. My bet is that they're using
: the Vail action as an excuse, not a reason. They just
: wanted to blow shit up.
That very well could be the case. If they just wanted to blow something
up then it's vandalism, not terrorism. Unless of course they did it
while it was full of people. Such was not the case.
Eugene Miya
Eugene Miya
>Buzzard <Buzz...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>: I was surprised nigh unto stunned when I read about the arson at Xxxxx
>: that did $12M damage.
>
Makes lots of difference.
Mary Malmros
Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) wrote:
>: In article <7157hc$4q9$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>,
>: david mann <dam...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>: >Mary Malmros (mal...@shore.net) wrote:
>: >: Excuse me, but...isn't this all a lot of mental masturbation?
>: >
>: >Perhaps. But it's useful mental masturbation.
>
>: Honestly, I can't see the use in it except for the participants'
>: own amusement. Apart from that, what good does the argumentation
>: about what label to call it do?
>
>By calling vandalism terrorism you cheapen the very real acts of
>terrorism that have occurred.
And by calling any act that doesn't injure or kill a human, even
if it only avoids that by accident, "vandalism", I think you're
going against the common sense of the term. So we agree to
disagree. *shrug*
>[snip]
>
>: So, it's a foregone conclusion that the "free marketplace of
>: ideas" ultimately leads to people playing out their ideas,
>: even at the expense of others?
>
>In the real world? Yes.
Greg, I live in the real world as much as you do -- and in
the real world, the free exchange of ideas does not inevitably
lead to selfish behavior that victimizes others. Humans are
capable of exercising restraint, and of recognizing that
their rights end where someone else's nose begins. If we
were not, all the laws in the world would not be capable of
preventing absolute bloody chaos across the globe.
>[snip]
>
>: I think there are more questions than that. In my mind, there
>: is the question of whether someone who answers force (in
>: this case, the right of a landowner to do what they want with
>: their land despite the wishes of others who may be negatively
>: impacted) with force (in the form of an arson attack) has
>: any claim to the moral high ground.
>
>You fail to consider the power of rationalization. Kinda like the
>anti-abortion folks who justify the killing of abortion doctors
>because they're "pro-life".
It's not that I fail to see the power of rationalization. It's
that I make the entirely correct distinction between rationalization
and justification. I am quite sure that the ELF has many
rationalizations; justification is what they lack.
>: Does anyone who doesn't
>: get their way have a legitimate claim when they say that
>: they've been "disenfranchised"?
>
>Depends on who's defining legitimate that day.
Not really. No unless you're playing the humpty dumpty game and
defining words to mean whatever you want. Consider the word
"disenfranchised" -- what does THAT mean to you? Can someone
claim to be disenfranchised if they have had their say, voted
their vote, but the majority wanted things done otherwise? If
I vote next week, and my candidate doesn't get elected, have
I been "disenfranchised"? Absolutely not. I've had my say.
But "franchise" doesn't mean "getting to have your way all
the time". These babies that apparently believe that need to
GROW UP.
>: Is it automatically right
>: to dignify the actions of someone who refuses to accept
>: that they can't have their way with the term "civil
>: disobedience"?
>
>I myself have not seen anyone calling this "civil disobedience". If
>they are calling it civil disobedience then I'd disagree. To me
>civil disobedience is peaceful and non-destructive.
Ayup. Amen to that.
[snip]
>: Didn't
>: any of these children ever go to kindergarten? In
>: kindergarten, you learn that sometimes you don't get to
>: sit on the top of the jungle gym. If your "non-violent
>: means" of getting the other kid off the top of the jungle
>: gym fail, and you resort to violent means (because you've
>: been disenfranchised, dammit), then that is neither a
>: logical nor an acceptable outcome. Not for human beings.
>
>In your opinion.
And in your opinion, what? Anybody who doesn't get their
way is "disenfranchised" and is entitled to swing for the
fences to get their way?
>Your views of how human beings should be are
>not necessarily shared by anyone else. I know we'd like to
>think that our own views of right and wrong are shared by others,
>but that is often just not the case.
Thanks for the condescension.
>: I have a rather strong suspicion that, at bottom, the Earth
>: Liberation Front is not terribly concerned about the lynx.
>
>Perhaps. Maybe they're so caught up in the righteousness of their
>cause that they're losing sight of the bigger picture. Like the
>guy who put the sniper's bullet into the New York abortion doctor.
>
>: Their action didn't protect any lynx habitat; all they did
>: was kick over the anthill. My bet is that they're using
>: the Vail action as an excuse, not a reason. They just
>: wanted to blow shit up.
>
>That very well could be the case. If they just wanted to blow something
>up then it's vandalism, not terrorism. Unless of course they did it
>while it was full of people. Such was not the case.
Well, you're gonna ride this hobbyhorse ad nauseam, and I think
that misses the main point. Call it vandalism. Call it terrorism.
Call it red flannel hash. Doesn't really matter. When it comes
down to fixing the problem, the word-gamers will be elsewhere, every
time.
Pat O'Connell
No Mercedes Benzes were harmed in this monkeywrenching.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Dakota
Greg Rose wrote in message <715b97$qbb$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>...
>No, not at all. Unless you want to call a lot of our American Forefathers
>terrorists. Discerning whether the act was terrorism or vandalism will
>go along way towards what kind of punishment the perpetrators would
>receive if caught. If it was vandalism then prison will be the
>result, OTOH terrorism is an act punishable by death. So, I'd say it
>isn't mental masturbation, it's a very cogent consideration. Certainly,
>if the issue comes up in court it won't be a case of mental masturbation.
Still mental masturbation to a great extent. In the state of Colorado, it
is legal for any citizen to use lethal force to stop arson. Colorado
permits the death penalty "at the source" for this sort of thing. No judge,
no jury, the law is on your side. This is the ONLY area of Colorado law
where killing someone is allowed by law, outside of self defense. I wonder
how many hunters know this.
That aside, the difference between vandalism and terrorism is specious at
best. The jury won't debate terminology, but rather the repercussions of
intent. It's very likely that vandalism resulting in "accidental" death
could also incur the death penalty. "You intentionally committed a crime
and irrespective of intent, somebody died." Ever see what happens to
someone who killed someone as a result of driving drunk? Obviously no
intent to kill, but the penalties are severe; much more so than just getting
caught. The difference is whether or not someone died. Innocent lives,
afterall.
A better punishment than death is life in prison <editorial=on>. It's much
cheaper, and there are some primo cells in SuperMax down in Florence that
could be "home" to the arsonist(s) for a long, long, time.
That said, this was obvously an act of terrorism because the intent was
coercion via destruction.
Dakota
Here's some info on "ELF" for those interested:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/vail1023.htm
Seems to me that anyone can commit such acts and say that it was sanctioned
by ELF. What a strange world we live in.
In another article, Vail Associates was quoted as saying that it would take
far more timber to rebuild the burned-down lodge than will be cut to build
the ski runs that "ELF" is protesting. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess...
Greg Rose
: In article <715d4s$qgp$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
: Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
: >
: >By calling vandalism terrorism you cheapen the very real acts of
: >terrorism that have occurred.
: And by calling any act that doesn't injure or kill a human, even
: if it only avoids that by accident, "vandalism", I think you're
: going against the common sense of the term. So we agree to
: disagree. *shrug*
*shrug*
: >: So, it's a foregone conclusion that the "free marketplace of
: >: ideas" ultimately leads to people playing out their ideas,
: >: even at the expense of others?
: >
: >In the real world? Yes.
: Greg, I live in the real world as much as you do -- and in
: the real world, the free exchange of ideas does not inevitably
: lead to selfish behavior that victimizes others.
Yet observation of the world around me tells me otherwise. Perhaps
it's not inevitable in a mechanical sense, but given what I've
learned about human behavior it seems inevitable.
: Humans are
: capable of exercising restraint, and of recognizing that
: their rights end where someone else's nose begins. If we
: were not, all the laws in the world would not be capable of
: preventing absolute bloody chaos across the globe.
As they indeed seem incapable of doing. How are things in Kosovo
going? Not well, despite all the international laws and threats
of air-strikes.
I guess I'm a pessimist.
: >: Does anyone who doesn't
: >: get their way have a legitimate claim when they say that
: >: they've been "disenfranchised"?
: >
: >Depends on who's defining legitimate that day.
: Not really. No unless you're playing the humpty dumpty game and
: defining words to mean whatever you want.
No, I'm pointing out that different cultures and groups might define
legitimate in different ways and that's a very real issue. The folks
who burned down the restaurant feel that their cause is legitimate.
You don't. Thus are wars born.
: Consider the word
: "disenfranchised" -- what does THAT mean to you? Can someone
: claim to be disenfranchised if they have had their say, voted
: their vote, but the majority wanted things done otherwise?
I agree with you. But...
There's a body of opinion that believes that certain
conscientious positions require that one ignore the law or
majority opinion if the violation of conscience is serious
enough. Perhaps the people who did this believe so strongly
in their cause that in their minds it justifies destruction of
property.
: If
: I vote next week, and my candidate doesn't get elected, have
: I been "disenfranchised"? Absolutely not. I've had my say.
: But "franchise" doesn't mean "getting to have your way all
: the time". These babies that apparently believe that need to
: GROW UP.
I agree.
I never intended to suggest that destroying property was a mature
thing to do.
: >: Didn't
: >: any of these children ever go to kindergarten? In
: >: kindergarten, you learn that sometimes you don't get to
: >: sit on the top of the jungle gym. If your "non-violent
: >: means" of getting the other kid off the top of the jungle
: >: gym fail, and you resort to violent means (because you've
: >: been disenfranchised, dammit), then that is neither a
: >: logical nor an acceptable outcome. Not for human beings.
: >
: >In your opinion.
: And in your opinion, what?
In my opinion I agree with you. However, I was pointing out the
obvious, that some people see it differently. Enough so that they
will engage in illegal acts in order to make a political and social
point.
: >Your views of how human beings should be are
: >not necessarily shared by anyone else. I know we'd like to
: >think that our own views of right and wrong are shared by others,
: >but that is often just not the case.
: Thanks for the condescension.
I'm sorry, I was just trying to point out that the people who did
this are obviously not adhering to the standards that most people
in this country live by. The great majority of people do have
pretty common views of right and wrong, but obviously some do.
: >
: >That very well could be the case. If they just wanted to blow something
: >up then it's vandalism, not terrorism. Unless of course they did it
: >while it was full of people. Such was not the case.
: Well, you're gonna ride this hobbyhorse ad nauseam, and I think
: that misses the main point. Call it vandalism. Call it terrorism.
: Call it red flannel hash. Doesn't really matter. When it comes
How about sabotage? I hesitated to use that word because it would
dignify the act somewhat.
Mary, throwing a grenade into a crowd of people, as seems to happen
in Isreal every other week, is terrorism. Parking a truck full of
explosives in front of a crowded office building and blowing it up
is terrorism. Parking a car bomb in a crowded market square and
killing dozens of men, women and children is terrorism. Burning
down a restaurant, while criminal and despicable, is not terrorism.
: down to fixing the problem, the word-gamers will be elsewhere, every
: time.
I guess I would be the word-gamer?
Ah well.
Anyway, fixing the problem seems to be a criminal matter to be handled
by the authorities, I doubt they want my help.
Greg Rose
: Still mental masturbation to a great extent. In the state of Colorado, it
: is legal for any citizen to use lethal force to stop arson. Colorado
: permits the death penalty "at the source" for this sort of thing. No judge,
: no jury, the law is on your side. This is the ONLY area of Colorado law
: where killing someone is allowed by law, outside of self defense. I wonder
: how many hunters know this.
I'm glad to hear that Colorado has such laws. So does Oregon. However,
if someone burns a restaurant down in Oregon, it's arson or vandalism.
Not terrorism. If the perpetrators get shot while committing the crime
then the state is saved the cost of a jury and a trial and that's just
fine too. So what do you folks in Colorado do with arsonists and vandals?
Try them for terrorism?
: That aside, the difference between vandalism and terrorism is specious at
: best.
Really? I wonder why they have different definitions? Ah well, such
impatient considerations such as wondering what words really mean are
just not important anymore I guess.
: The jury won't debate terminology, but rather the repercussions of
: intent. It's very likely that vandalism resulting in "accidental" death
: could also incur the death penalty. "You intentionally committed a crime
: and irrespective of intent, somebody died." Ever see what happens to
: someone who killed someone as a result of driving drunk? Obviously no
: intent to kill, but the penalties are severe; much more so than just getting
: caught. The difference is whether or not someone died. Innocent lives,
: afterall.
Exactly. No one died. Not terrorism. Arson, vandalism, malicious
destruction of property, having a bon-fire without a permit and smoking
while in a public place perhaps, but not terrorism.
: That said, this was obvously an act of terrorism because the intent was
: coercion via destruction.
Well, I guess every crime could be termed terrorism. Talk about watering
down the term.
But have it your way, OK, it's terrorism.
Sheesh.
Boy, did I ever put my foot into a big gooey cow pattie on this one.
david mann
: That said, this was obvously an act of terrorism because the intent was
: coercion via destruction.
If that is the case, would you say that a so-called peaceful
sit-in that had the effect of disrupting business (and thereby
was destructive to income producing activities) is terrorism?
Clearly sit-ins have the intent of coercion via destruction
of income or process.
Stephen W. Anderson
>AFAIK, it (terrorism) is not a "condoned" method of political change in ANY
country.
It isn't just terrorism (however one defines that). Any sort of serious
challenge to the status quo is uncondoned in all nations. Because we always
have an election coming around the corner America has sometimes, not always,
been more reluctant to use institutional violence as a response than have
some. Unfortunately our advancing institutionalization of government,
business and hybrids is, I suspect, reducing the restraints on that as power
shifts from the people at large to those institutions.
>In the US, we had the Boston Tea Party -- provided that you
>agree that vandalism == terrorism.
One of many, and the music, I think, has just begun.
>The recent peace accords in Ireland and on the middle east
>seem to suggest that terrorism works. I doubt that there would
>have been any change in the status quo if not for the IRA or PLA.
Unconventional violence is the only option for the disenfranchised who are
unwilling to abandon their basic interests in the face of tyranny (as they
see it) by a ruling class or imperial power. That strategy becomes
increasingly effective as society's infrastructure and social web become
more fragile with the higher development of technology.
For a closer, and to most Americans certainly a more controversial, view of
the matter consider our own abortion issue and the violence to which an
illegitimate attempt to resolve it through politically exclusive means at
the federal level has led us. I think we are approaching a limit on
development, a point at which there will be a balance between what we have
thought of as social, technological or economic "progress" organized and
controlled by institutional power and the resistance to it of people not
included in our increasingly, I believe very dangerously, centralized
political and economic process. Our failure to respect the principles of due
process we espouse is breeding disaster, and we are likely to experience a
rising level of what fans of the status quo call "terrorism" originating
from alienated people both foreign and domestic.
wayne
> So what do you folks in Colorado do with arsonists and vandals?
> Try them for terrorism?
As a side note, on the local news last night a local from Vail was
interviewed. (well as local as you can get from Vail) She suggested we
have a "public stoning" of the people that did it. My conclusion from
watching the news for a few days is that ELF made a lot of enemies in
Colorado.
Wayne.
Ken McNair
>
> In another article, Vail Associates was quoted as saying that it would take
> far more timber to rebuild the burned-down lodge than will be cut to build
> the ski runs that "ELF" is protesting. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess...
Sounds similar to the situation where a large number of mink were
liberated from fur farms in Britain by animal rights activists.
The sudden increase in the number of predators has reportedly had
a devastating effect on the local wildlife, which apparently doesn't
have any rights.
Greg Rose
Well, if they want to publicly stone someone guilty of arson and vandalism,
I wonder what they'd do with someone who tossed a grenade into a crowd
of kids (real terrorism). Boiling oil, red hot pokers and Iron Maiden's
anyone?
Dakota
Ken McNair wrote in message <363748AA...@nortel.ca>...
Could be the same group. ELF has its roots in British animal rights
activism according to what little I've read of them.
greg_...@bigfoot.com
>
>simply vandalism.
So if you blow up a tree in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
does it still go boom?
And what would that make you? ...a terrorist or vandal?...or or a
herbicidal maniac!
Greg
Mary Malmros
Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>Dakota (n...@spam.com) wrote:
>
>: Still mental masturbation to a great extent. In the state of Colorado, it
>: is legal for any citizen to use lethal force to stop arson. Colorado
>: permits the death penalty "at the source" for this sort of thing. No judge,
>: no jury, the law is on your side. This is the ONLY area of Colorado law
>: where killing someone is allowed by law, outside of self defense. I wonder
>: how many hunters know this.
>
>I'm glad to hear that Colorado has such laws. So does Oregon. However,
>if someone burns a restaurant down in Oregon, it's arson or vandalism.
>Not terrorism.
Greg, the perps also burned down a ski patrol/rescue patrol lodge. Does
that change things, in your view? Is there a difference between putting
sugar in the gas tank of a city bus, and putting sugar in the gas tank
of a firetruck? Or are they both just "vandalism"?
Dakota
Greg Rose wrote in message <7166v7$st0$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>...
>Dakota (n...@spam.com) wrote:
>
>: Still mental masturbation to a great extent. In the state of Colorado,
it
>: is legal for any citizen to use lethal force to stop arson. Colorado
>: permits the death penalty "at the source" for this sort of thing. No
judge,
>: no jury, the law is on your side. This is the ONLY area of Colorado law
>: where killing someone is allowed by law, outside of self defense. I
wonder
>: how many hunters know this.
>
>I'm glad to hear that Colorado has such laws. So does Oregon. However,
>if someone burns a restaurant down in Oregon, it's arson or vandalism.
>then the state is saved the cost of a jury and a trial and that's just
>Try them for terrorism?
We'd try them for arson or vandalism. I'd expect that the people with the
matches and gas in Vail would be tried for arson -- had anyone died in the
fires, first degree murder charges would be added. I believe (not 100%
sure) that arson itself would be enough for a life term, though possibly not
enough for life without parole. If someone burns down a building, isn't it
arson before vandalism? The penalties for arson are much more harsh
(felony).
>: That aside, the difference between vandalism and terrorism is specious at
>: best.
>
>Really? I wonder why they have different definitions? Ah well, such
>impatient considerations such as wondering what words really mean are
>just not important anymore I guess.
All I'm saying is that the practical difference between vandalism and
terrorism probably won't matter to the jury. Technically, I agree though.
>: The jury won't debate terminology, but rather the repercussions of
>: intent. It's very likely that vandalism resulting in "accidental" death
>: could also incur the death penalty. "You intentionally committed a crime
>: and irrespective of intent, somebody died." Ever see what happens to
>: someone who killed someone as a result of driving drunk? Obviously no
>: intent to kill, but the penalties are severe; much more so than just
getting
>: caught. The difference is whether or not someone died. Innocent lives,
>: afterall.
>
>Exactly. No one died. Not terrorism. Arson, vandalism, malicious
>destruction of property, having a bon-fire without a permit and smoking
>while in a public place perhaps, but not terrorism.
>
>: That said, this was obvously an act of terrorism because the intent was
>: coercion via destruction.
>
>Well, I guess every crime could be termed terrorism. Talk about watering
>down the term.
Not quite. Many, if not most acts of vandalism lack any attempt at
coercion.
>But have it your way, OK, it's terrorism.
>
>Sheesh.
>
>Boy, did I ever put my foot into a big gooey cow pattie on this one.
Nah. The thinking alone is worth the debate. My own definitions have
wandered quite far from the dictionary at this point. In my own small mind,
the difference between vandalism and terrorism is based in intent and
outcome. Coercion in itself does not define terrorism. Destruction could
be either vandalism or terrorism, depending on intent.
Confused yet? I know I am!
Dakota
david mann wrote in message <7177o2$64e$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu>...
>Dakota (n...@spam.com) wrote:
>: That said, this was obvously an act of terrorism because the intent was
>: coercion via destruction.
>
>
>sit-in that had the effect of disrupting business (and thereby
>was destructive to income producing activities) is terrorism?
>Clearly sit-ins have the intent of coercion via destruction
>of income or process.
Good question. I'd call this one "tresspassing." We can get wrapped up in
the semantics all we want, but what matters is what the courts are likely to
do. Is it likely that a jury would find participants in a sit-in guilty of
terrorism? The scale of destruction is part of law also. Big difference
between $12 million worth of damage that will take years to fix, and a
sit-in where the damage is limited to the amount of time it takes for the
sheriff to arrive with the bolt cutters.
Guess I should go back to the dictionary, but I do believe the Vail fires
went a step or two beyond vandalism.
Dakota
Greg Rose wrote in message <717icl$48h$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>...
>wayne ("PainintheKingsAss"@LibertarianandProud.com) wrote:
>: Greg Rose wrote:
>: > Try them for terrorism?
>
>: As a side note, on the local news last night a local from Vail was
>: interviewed. (well as local as you can get from Vail) She suggested we
>: have a "public stoning" of the people that did it. My conclusion from
>: watching the news for a few days is that ELF made a lot of enemies in
>: Colorado.
>
>Well, if they want to publicly stone someone guilty of arson and vandalism,
>I wonder what they'd do with someone who tossed a grenade into a crowd
>of kids (real terrorism). Boiling oil, red hot pokers and Iron Maiden's
>anyone?
Question: Does your definition of terrorism necessarily involve
intentionally killing innocent people? (Yeah, I'm serious.) How does
political motive play into this?
Are rape victims that survive terrorized or vandalized? Doesn't it depend
on the specifics of each case? Would you classify the Vail fires in the
same category as the two drunk teenagers who break a dozen car windows just
for fun? Clearly, they could BOTH be considered vandalism, but the scope,
intent and outcome of the crimes are vastly different.
Likewise, there have been numerous cases of senseless killings here in the
US over the past few years. The San Ysedro (sp?) McDonalds killings and
Furr's Cafeteria shootings in Killeen, TX come to mind. In both of these
cases, a number of people were slaughtered; not a lot different than
throwing a grenade into a crowd. Would you consider these to be terrorism
just because of the senseless death count?
I got no answers (trust me). If the ELF's are brought to justice for the
fires, I'm pretty confident that trying them for arson will suffice.
I'm liking this boiling oil idea, gotta say... <cancelling delivery of
rocks>
Greg Moore (Strider)
> >
> > In another article, Vail Associates was quoted as saying that it would take
> > far more timber to rebuild the burned-down lodge than will be cut to build
> > the ski runs that "ELF" is protesting. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess...
Not necessarily. If the timber cut down for the ski run were a species
unique to that area, and the timber cut down for the buildings was
common yellow pine, the trade-off might be worth it.
--
Greg D. Moore President moo...@greenms.com
Green Mountain Software http://www.greenms.com/
518-283-4083 MCSE
Dakota
Greg Rose wrote in message <718fvc$q69$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>...
>Dakota (n...@spam.com) wrote:
>[snippage]
>
>: Confused yet? I know I am!
>
>Try this on for size...
>
>Calling a certain action terrorism is a political statement. I mean,
>we already have the criminal code to describe the murder and mayhem
>that terrorists use, so why do we need to use the term terrorism?
>And who uses it? Who decides which violent acts are heroic stands
>against tyranny or cowardly attacks on the innocent? I promise you
>that there are millions of people around the world who think the US
>is a terrorist state. :^@
Exactly. What we know as terrorism always involves a political statement.
Thus, the Vail fires qualify. Who decides? I sure don't know, but most
don't, so we defer to the "popular court." In context, the ELF set the
fires to protect lynx habitat. The lynx is under study in Colorado for
reintroduction; that is, there aren't any here now, or precious few. The
proposed habitat isn't even real close to Vail. ELF burned Vail because the
"light was better there." Complete morons.
Good comment on the US as a terrorist state. It might be more accurate to
say that we're seen as international bullies, but the effect is the same,
and it's quite true.
>By the way we're defining terrorism the Boston Tea Party qualifies
>as a terrorist act. Yet to the American Colonists it was a moment
>of defiance against tyranny.
Well, yeah. Where's the fight against tyranny in the Vail fires? I can buy
an honest fight, but this act was clueless.
>Now it gets even more confusing. Gosh, where's that absolute moral
>standard when we need it the most?
There is no such thing as an absolute moral standard. Comes with having
opposing thumbs and cognitive brains, I guess. Dunno about you, but after a
week or two of political ads, I'm feeling a bit terrorized myself. Society
and all it's rules exist such that a bazillion of us can mostly get along.
Sometimes, breaking the rules works for the betterment of us all, but more
often they don't.
Dakota
Greg Moore (Strider) wrote in message <3637D5...@greenms.com>...
>> Dakota wrote:
>> >
>> > In another article, Vail Associates was quoted as saying that it would
take
>> > far more timber to rebuild the burned-down lodge than will be cut to
build
>> > the ski runs that "ELF" is protesting. Stupid is as stupid does, I
guess...
>
>
> Not necessarily. If the timber cut down for the ski run were a species
>unique to that area, and the timber cut down for the buildings was
>common yellow pine, the trade-off might be worth it.
You're fighting too hard here, Greg. I'd agree, but... From what we know,
the fires weren't set because of timber issues. It was the Vail people who
made the statement about the trees, and we're not talking about old-growth
forests here.
Are you saying that the action could be justified in any way? Destruction,
in any form is a loss. Forget cutting trees to rebuild; the new logs will
likely be freighted in via train from the Pacific Northwest. Now, THAT
sucks... Eh?
Greg Rose
: Greg Rose wrote in message <7166v7$st0$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>...
: >Try them for terrorism?
: We'd try them for arson or vandalism.
That's what I thought.
: I'd expect that the people with the
: matches and gas in Vail would be tried for arson -- had anyone died in the
: fires, first degree murder charges would be added.
Of course.
: I believe (not 100%
: sure) that arson itself would be enough for a life term, though possibly not
: enough for life without parole. If someone burns down a building, isn't it
: arson before vandalism?
I think you're right.
: >Really? I wonder why they have different definitions? Ah well, such
: >impatient considerations such as wondering what words really mean are
: >just not important anymore I guess.
: All I'm saying is that the practical difference between vandalism and
: terrorism probably won't matter to the jury. Technically, I agree though.
Well, if the prosecutor brings them to court for arson and vandalism then
I'm guess he could bring up motive, which would probably have an effect
on the jury's thinking.
[snippage]
: >
: >Boy, did I ever put my foot into a big gooey cow pattie on this one.
: Nah. The thinking alone is worth the debate. My own definitions have
: wandered quite far from the dictionary at this point. In my own small mind,
: the difference between vandalism and terrorism is based in intent and
: outcome. Coercion in itself does not define terrorism. Destruction could
: be either vandalism or terrorism, depending on intent.
: Confused yet? I know I am!
Try this on for size...
Calling a certain action terrorism is a political statement. I mean,
we already have the criminal code to describe the murder and mayhem
that terrorists use, so why do we need to use the term terrorism?
And who uses it? Who decides which violent acts are heroic stands
against tyranny or cowardly attacks on the innocent? I promise you
that there are millions of people around the world who think the US
is a terrorist state. :^@
By the way we're defining terrorism the Boston Tea Party qualifies
as a terrorist act. Yet to the American Colonists it was a moment
of defiance against tyranny.
Now it gets even more confusing. Gosh, where's that absolute moral
standard when we need it the most?
--
Greg Rose
: Greg Rose wrote in message <717icl$48h$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>...
: >
: >Well, if they want to publicly stone someone guilty of arson and vandalism,
: >I wonder what they'd do with someone who tossed a grenade into a crowd
: >of kids (real terrorism). Boiling oil, red hot pokers and Iron Maiden's
: >anyone?
: Question: Does your definition of terrorism necessarily involve
: intentionally killing innocent people? (Yeah, I'm serious.) How does
: political motive play into this?
That's the whole point, terrorism is killing (and by so doing giving
the implicit threat that more will be killed) for a political cause.
If the worst thing the people of Isreal had to deal with was someone
burning down their restaurants then I think there would be a whole
lot less coercive force involved. Burning down buildings to make a
political statement is a form of coercion, but not terrorism. More
like extortion. Protection rackets will use arson and vandalism
to force people to pay up. Terrorism? Not as the word has been
generally used, although I'm sure at some point the victims are
probably terrified.
: Are rape victims that survive terrorized or vandalized?
Yes, if done for political reasons to threaten or terrorize someone
into doing something they would not otherwise do. Rape as terrorism
was a common practice in Bosnia and, if reports I've heard are true,
it's happening right now in Kosovo. It's a shame, but true.
: Doesn't it depend
: on the specifics of each case?
Absolutely. There are a lot of gray areas.
: Would you classify the Vail fires in the
: same category as the two drunk teenagers who break a dozen car windows just
: for fun?
No. But would I classify them as bad as tossing a hand grenade into
a crowd of people? Again, no. It's somewhere in between. Worse than
petty vandalism, but not quite terrorism. Clearly any case involving
12 million smackers is going to be a serious case. The law does take
into account the value of property destroyed when sentencing for the
crime takes place.
: Clearly, they could BOTH be considered vandalism, but the scope,
: intent and outcome of the crimes are vastly different.
Given.
: Likewise, there have been numerous cases of senseless killings here in the
: US over the past few years. The San Ysedro (sp?) McDonalds killings and
: Furr's Cafeteria shootings in Killeen, TX come to mind. In both of these
: cases, a number of people were slaughtered; not a lot different than
: throwing a grenade into a crowd. Would you consider these to be terrorism
: just because of the senseless death count?
No. It's a systematic use of terror, but not to achieve political ends.
: I got no answers (trust me). If the ELF's are brought to justice for the
: fires, I'm pretty confident that trying them for arson will suffice.
I'm sure they'd get several years in the pen if caught. And well deserved
if you ask me.
: I'm liking this boiling oil idea, gotta say... <cancelling delivery of
: rocks>
Don't forget the red hot pokers!
;^)
david mann
: Now it gets even more confusing. Gosh, where's that absolute moral
: standard when we need it the most?
This is the curse of being a lover in the midst of
dangerous times.
"You got to kick at the darkness 'till it bleeds daylight."
--Bruce Cockburn
Shalom,
Dave
Evan Cantor
>On the contrary, you'd think whoever did it doesn't realize that.
>Or do you have some more subtle layer of plot in mind?
>--
>Stephen W. Anderson
>Rocky Mount, NC
>Eugene Miya wrote in message <7132n4$7...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
>>Someplace has to be a sacriface area.
>>Who ever did it, has to realize that.
Only a fool will think that Vail is out of the water on this.
B
B
Margaret Wood
>Gosh, where's that absolute moral
> standard when we need it the most?
That's the lie in the American Way....that there is EVER an absolute
moral standard, the "absolute" is for those who need rules and have a
need to have their thinking done for them. It makes us look so damn
impractical and naive. There are some basics that seem immovable but the
gray area is always there.
Terrorism is any act that induces terror in its victims or spectators
(us) towards a specific outcome, that the terror induced may change
outcomes. (people thinking twice about going on vacation to Vail? Stock
falling?) It is also the cowards choice in this case, to anonymously
make a point in a spectacular way, without individuls standing up for
beliefs publicly. Often the convicted terrorists of today are the heroes
of tomorrow and are often "political prisoners" in the between time.
Vandalism originates from the Vandal tribe of europe who basically
burned and pillaged their way through great swaths of land more or less
randomly destroying most anything of value on their way. Enter the Dark
Ages.
I hope the guys who did the Vail arson get caught and answer to what
they have done for a long time. I also hope that people reexamine their
need for another Vail development and put their money towards more
positive, less conspicuously consumptive entertainment.
Margaret
Greg Rose
: Greg Rose (gr...@black.kilchis.com) wrote:
: : Now it gets even more confusing. Gosh, where's that absolute moral
: : standard when we need it the most?
: This is the curse of being a lover in the midst of
: dangerous times.
: "You got to kick at the darkness 'till it bleeds daylight."
: --Bruce Cockburn
I'm still kicking. Survivors learn to keep kicking.
: Shalom,
: Dave
Peace to you also David,
--
greg rose
Peter Wayne
Greg Rose
: Vandalism originates from the Vandal tribe of europe who basically
: burned and pillaged their way through great swaths of land more or less
: randomly destroying most anything of value on their way. Enter the Dark
: Ages.
I almost thought that you were talking about the industrial age for
a second.
: I hope the guys who did the Vail arson get caught and answer to what
: they have done for a long time. I also hope that people reexamine their
: need for another Vail development and put their money towards more
: positive, less conspicuously consumptive entertainment.
Me too.
Eugene Miya
Pat O'Connell <patoN...@nmia.com> wrote:
>No Mercedes Benzes were harmed in this monkeywrenching.
Rats.
Try harder next time, guys.
Eugene Miya
Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>No, not at all. Unless you want to call a lot of our American Forefathers
>terrorists.
Some of our American Forefathers were terrorists of their time.
>The act was vandalism.
You need a law book and a judge and maybe a jury for this one.
>were the unruly college students of the '60's who rioted and occupied
>university offices terrorists or vandals? They were using vandalism
The T word was not in extensive use at the time.
There was extensive rioting in various inner cities.
Whereas vandalism was extensive, there were quite a few incidents of
hostage taking.
"God is on the side with the heaviest artillery."
--Napoleon
Robert Ramirez
>
> In article <715b97$qbb$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
> Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
> >No, not at all. Unless you want to call a lot of our American Forefathers
> >terrorists.
>
> Some of our American Forefathers were terrorists of their time.
Sorry, I can't let this pass. Terrorism is not about war; it is about
controlling civilian populations, by means of frightening, unexpected,
and seemingly random violence. I cannot imagine what you are talking
about.
Echo the Wonder Tube
wrote:
>Dakota (n...@spam.com) wrote:
>: Greg Rose wrote in message <717icl$48h$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>...
>: >Well, if they want to publicly stone someone guilty of arson and vandalism,
>: >I wonder what they'd do with someone who tossed a grenade into a crowd
>: >of kids (real terrorism). Boiling oil, red hot pokers and Iron Maiden's
>: >anyone?
>
>: Question: Does your definition of terrorism necessarily involve
>: intentionally killing innocent people? (Yeah, I'm serious.) How does
>: political motive play into this?
>
>That's the whole point, terrorism is killing (and by so doing giving
>the implicit threat that more will be killed) for a political cause.
>If the worst thing the people of Isreal had to deal with was someone
>burning down their restaurants then I think there would be a whole
>lot less coercive force involved. Burning down buildings to make a
>political statement is a form of coercion, but not terrorism. More
>like extortion. Protection rackets will use arson and vandalism
>to force people to pay up. Terrorism? Not as the word has been
>generally used, although I'm sure at some point the victims are
>probably terrified.
Beg to disagree with you on this. The very etymology of the word
contains the answer. To attempt to achieve something through the use
of terror. No killing required, although the clear message of such
acts is that killing will be done if necessary. Want proof? The IRA
used to routinely set bombs, then call the police so that they could
evacuate the area. The bomb would then go off. The very clear
message is quit fuggin' with us, because we didn't HAVE to tell you
that was there. And that's pretty terrifying.
I'd definitely put what ELF did into the terrorism category. And
people could've been killed. My friend Doug and his girlfriend live
west Vail and were up hiking and biking in that area a couple of days
beforehand. The fire was set at night, but it's not uncommon for
people to be up there at night.
Greg Rose
: "God is on the side with the heaviest artillery."
: --Napoleon
Eugene, striking the nail right on the head again...
A.R.B.
Well, I've read this thread with some interest (and occassional
consultation of a dictionary to follow the semantic arguments) but with
this new turn I'll dip my toe in. The person who mentioned the 'Humpty
Dumpty syndrome' where a word means 'exactly what a person means it to
mean' hit the nail on the head for this thread, IMO. Some people's
definition may be a tad more exclusive than others. My trusty Funk and
Wagnalls and big Webster dictionaries do not get as specific as some of
the posters' definitions of terrorism. However, my interest is more with
the new element of the thread this recent post opened. I may regret
broaching this line of thought in a newsgroup just chock
full'o'Americans, but here I go.
I am a Canadian living in an area swarming with the descendants of
'Loyalists' (our term for American colonists who stayed loyal to the
crown during the American Revolutionary War and who consequencely
emigrated to Canada during or after the war). I use the word 'emigrated'
loosely as I am not sure if that quite captures the full flavour of the
situation of having all your lands and possessions seized and being
persecuted to the point of fleeing the country. If you imagine yourself
in their shoes during those historic times, a lot of the actions of the
American 'patriots' (who were actually technically seditious traitors
for a lot of that time- after all being subjects of the British crown
who advocated the overthrow of their present government and used deadly
force to do so- but since their side won, they are remembered as
patriots instead) were 'terroristic' to some degree (the degree being
dependant on how strict your definition of the term is, I suppose).
One can quibble over the exact figures but some of the works on the
subject I've read suggest a rough split among American colonists at the
time of 1/3 in favour of the revolution, 1/3 opposed and 1/3 on the
fence. The actions of that 1/3 minority who agitated for violent
overthrow included several deadly destructive attacks that must have
terrorized many of the other two thirds who did not share their views.
For example, the capital of my province of Prince Edward Island (among
many other coastal settlements in eastern Canada) was attacked and
looted in 1775 by a boatload of Yankees who wanted to show colonists who
didn't feel like forming a new country the error of their ways by
pillaging their town. Just spreading the good news, I guess. Would the
burning, looting, assaulting and killing of innocent people in towns far
removed from any previous fighting whose only crime is not sharing
revolutionary fervor be terribly different than the IRA setting bombs
off in London because the residents there have a government that does
not want them to be separate from the UK?
The USA is a fascinating place. It is an interesting situation when a
country founded by violent revolution faces violent protests by its own
citizens (a la the Freemen or the Branch Dravidians)... it gets a little
sticky condemning a movement that is using much the same tactics for
much the same reasons (e.g. unjust taxation and unjust government
interference) as the lionized 'patriots' of American mythology. And not
to mention American condemnation of many revolutions in other countries.
Oh, by the way, relax... I do not question the 'legitimacy' of the
mighty United States of America and doubt anyone of you would give a fig
if I did anyway. I just wanted to point out some of the interesting
ramifications when you look at the history books from another point of
view. History is written by the victors, after all... but even the
defeated can get in a jab worthy of consideration sometimes too.
Ummm... and the soldiers of both sides during the American
Revolutionary War slept outside a lot, so you could say they were
camping (Does that excuse the diversion this thread has taken from
anything remotely 'rec.backcountry' related? Didn't think so.) :^/
Cheers,
Farmboy
P.S. And don't get me started on the War of 1812!
Stephen W. Anderson
>> Some of our American Forefathers were terrorists of their time.
>
>Sorry, I can't let this pass. Terrorism is not about war; it is about
>controlling civilian populations, by means of frightening, unexpected,
>and seemingly random violence. I cannot imagine what you are talking
>about.
Terrorism is a form of warfare, one usually employed by parties without
access to adequate conventional military means to pursue their ends.
Sometimes more established military powers use it, too. Depending on what we
were trying to accomplish it might be that our recent destruction of a
pharmaceuticals factory in the Sudan was an act of terrorism. The British
bombing of Heidelburg in WWII can be seen as such.
The term "terrorism" has to be defined much more carefully than it has been
here before it can be used with any real meaning.
During the American Revolution both the rebels and the Tories used
unconventional methods of warfare. People were burned out of their houses
for their political beliefs, murdered outright or locked away to die in
dismal prisons, their property confiscated, their wives raped and their
children killed. The purpose of it was the same as that of today's
terrorist: punishment for those with the cheek to dissent, discouragement of
dissention, and disruption of the dissenting community. You wouldn't find
Thomas Jefferson or James Madison doing those things, but others on their
side of the conflict certainly did.
grennels
Robert Ramirez <bram...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<363A40...@bellsouth.net>...
> Eugene Miya wrote:
> >
> > In article <715b97$qbb$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
> > Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
> > >No, not at all. Unless you want to call a lot of our American
Forefathers
> > >terrorists.
> >
> > Some of our American Forefathers were terrorists of their time.
>
> Sorry, I can't let this pass. Terrorism is not about war; it is about
> controlling civilian populations, by means of frightening, unexpected,
> and seemingly random violence. I cannot imagine what you are talking
> about.
>
The Boston Tea Party doesn't seem so very different from was was done it
Vail.
Mary Malmros
It wasn't. So what's your point?
rata...@zdnetmail.com
venture...@pei.sympatico.ca dit:
> a really great post giving a little perspective on a few topics.
>
> P.S. And don't get me started on the War of 1812!
>
Yeah, cause that was a simple Communist / Anti-Communist thing, right ?
Do most countries have this patriotic-induction through high-school history
thing going, or is this an American thing ? How about Canada ?
Actually, I'd be interested, the High School US history of the 1812 War is a
little hazy. Send me an email or maybe rec.boating would be appropriate.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Greg Rose
: Greg, the perps also burned down a ski patrol/rescue patrol lodge. Does
: that change things, in your view? Is there a difference between putting
: sugar in the gas tank of a city bus, and putting sugar in the gas tank
: of a firetruck? Or are they both just "vandalism"?
I don't consider it "just" vandalism. Vandalism becomes more serious
in proportion to the value of the property damaged. Obviously, this
is a very serious case. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the
primary crime would be more appropriately defined as arson first.
Arson is also a serious crime. I've not been trying to downplay
the seriousness of the crime and if it has seemed that way then I
apologize.
david mann
: : Greg, the perps also burned down a ski patrol/rescue patrol lodge. Does
: : that change things, in your view? Is there a difference between putting
: : sugar in the gas tank of a city bus, and putting sugar in the gas tank
: : of a firetruck? Or are they both just "vandalism"?
Vandalism becomes terrorism when the vandalism has
terroristic affects on a population. Think dependancies.
Think interrelations. Do a web search on critical
infrastructure protection. The President has had a
recent commission looking at this. Serious stuff.
We could see terrorism but Vail won't rate.
If the Vail arson of the patrol building had been
coordinated with, say, the cutting of wires that killed
the power to lifts at, say, 3:30 pm.... then that might
have been terrorism. Innocent folks put at risk. But
vandals action has put the safety of Vail skiers in the
hands of Vail management. Vail Associates has to decide
whether or not they can open for operations and provide
good (non-liable) ski patrol services.
Eugene Miya
Robert Ramirez <bram...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eugene Miya wrote:
>>
>> In article <715b97$qbb$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
>> Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>> >No, not at all. Unless you want to call a lot of our American Forefathers
>> >terrorists.
>>
>> Some of our American Forefathers were terrorists of their time.
>
>Sorry, I can't let this pass. Terrorism is not about war; it is about
>controlling civilian populations, by means of frightening, unexpected,
>and seemingly random violence. I cannot imagine what you are talking
>about.
The vast majority of "our Forefathers" weren't.
The Revolutionaries were a minority percentage of the poplice.
Actually, I didn't say anything specifically about war.
Something like 85% (the 15% is the other figure frequently cited for the Rs.)
of the poplice either sided with the British or remained neutral.
The US largely lucked out because of the distance between England and
the Colonies (1-way 3 months travel time) as well as quite a few other factors.
Eugene Miya
Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>Eugene Miya (eug...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: "God is on the side with the heaviest artillery."
>: --Napoleon
>Eugene, striking the nail right on the head again...
No, that was the voice of my HS calculus teacher in my brain.
Just a mime.
One of life's little complexities.
Eugene Miya
Hey, it started it Internet.
> Ummm... and the soldiers of both sides during the American
>Revolutionary War slept outside a lot, so you could say they were
>camping (Does that excuse the diversion this thread has taken from
>anything remotely 'rec.backcountry' related? Didn't think so.) :^/
Unmoderated news group.
You can trust me on that one. Any topic is game.
We get people for other things (e.g., GIFs, excessive cross posting
w/o reduced followups, minor stuff).
>P.S. And don't get me started on the War of 1812!
Tell us your views on the War of 1812.
8^)
"You're in a desert walking along in the sand when
all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise.
It's crawling toward you. You reach down; you flip the tortoise on its back.
The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun,
beating it's legs trying to turn itself over; but it can't,
not without your help, but you are not helping. Why is that?"
david mann
: "You're in a desert walking along in the sand when
: all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise.
: It's crawling toward you. You reach down; you flip the tortoise on its back.
: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun,
: beating it's legs trying to turn itself over; but it can't,
: not without your help, but you are not helping. Why is that?"
Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky: Oh no, not *that* again.
John Cooley
New, in boxes. Never used. Originally $249 each
from the Mountain Shop, Fort Collins, CO.
Asking $225 each, plus shipping.
Visual search indicator, adjustable receive range
to narrow search zone.
Contact: John Cooley
(970) 491-6017 (day)
(970) 224-2252 (evening)
jo...@yuma.colostate.edu
Note: Not available weekends until May!
Eugene Miya
grennels <gren...@nwonline.net> wrote:
>Robert Ramirez <bram...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
><363A40...@bellsouth.net>...
>> > In article <715b97$qbb$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
>> > Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>> > >No, not at all. Unless you want to call a lot of our American Forefathers
>> > >terrorists.
>> > Some of our American Forefathers were terrorists of their time.
>>
>> Sorry, I can't let this pass. Terrorism is not about war; it is about
>> controlling civilian populations, by means of frightening, unexpected,
>> and seemingly random violence. I cannot imagine what you are talking
>> about.
>>
>Vail.
Oh, no, he was expecting people to cite that example.
The BTP was pretty much staged. The British had some rough ideas how
unpopular their policies were. Sending the boat was only the equivalent
of painting a target on it. It was a stimulus.
Clearly there was a war of posters during that time, a kin in some ways
to the Usenet, except that opponents would sometimes tear the opposition's
posters down. Posters announcing the arrival of the ship were also sent
around. So the BTP was deliberately high profile from both sides and
known in advance to be a potential flash point.
Victims don't see random events.
From the perspective of victims, there's a target either with their name
on it or a more abstract "To Whom it may concern."
However, from the bystanders perspective, they only see casualities.
What we now call "copy cat" violence probably isn't unique to our era.
I have no doubt there were many of those events by bored/disenfranchised
young men.
Certainly during this time, kings attempted to standardize warfare
with things like uniforms. Revolutionaries didn't do this (lack of
money as well as no respect for that tradition). Tory bystanders
would be offended by the latter.
From a bystander's perspective, anyone could be a target.
One hoped that only the guys in uniform would be affected.
That's the "uncertainty" of terrorism. Governments recently have taken
to the term "collateral damage."
Both (victims and bystanders) can be survivors.
War is messy, and not fully logical (but does have local bits of it to
confuse people). Terrorism is a relatively recent idea, and it's not
fully formed. It's not warfare in the conventional sense (legalese).
But what is? I'll leave out the whole question of "irregulars."
It's all going to be fluid anyway.
kmsimmons
>
> Certainly during this time, kings attempted to standardize warfare
> with things like uniforms. Revolutionaries didn't do this (lack of
> money as well as no respect for that tradition). Tory bystanders
> would be offended by the latter.
>
> From a bystander's perspective, anyone could be a target.
>
irregulars on *both* sides terrorizing the civilian populace. On the
American side, two prominent names are Francis Marion and Dan Morgan,
while the British had Major Ferguson and Banastre Tarleton--a British
Lord who seems to have had quite a sadistic streak. Throw in the
British Indian irregulars and I expect the non uniformed contingent
greatly outnumbered those in uniforms, at least until Cornwallis made
his fatal move South.
Greg Rose
: In article <71dqtd$jg2$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
: Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
: >Eugene Miya (eug...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: >: "God is on the side with the heaviest artillery."
: >: --Napoleon
: >Eugene, striking the nail right on the head again...
: No, that was the voice of my HS calculus teacher in my brain.
: Just a mime.
Still, it seemed a highly appropriate quote given the subject matter.
So, to me, you hit the nail right on the head, no matter where the
idea for the quote sprang from.
: One of life's little complexities.
Yet another.
bobalu
revolution. Started by the Brits trying to throw their weight around by
impressment of sailors at sea and so forth. To show how little I
remember, was that the war that made the Plains of Abraham famous?
Les Jones
rher...@relevanceSPAM-IS-SHITE.net (Echo the Wonder Tube) wrote:
> I'd definitely put what ELF did into the terrorism category. And
> people could've been killed. My friend Doug and his girlfriend live
> west Vail and were up hiking and biking in that area a couple of days
> beforehand. The fire was set at night, but it's not uncommon for
> people to be up there at night.
There was a hunter asleep in one of the targeted buildings that night.
Luckily the ELF spotted him before they torched the building.
From the Newsweek article:
----
Katie Fedor, North American spokeswoman for ELF's sister group the Animal
Liberation Front, said that even though the groups despise blood sports,
the arsonists did spare the bathroom after spotting Sebso inside. She
added, "Isn't it ironic that the hunters were protected by the very people
they are calling terrorists, when they are the ones who kill?"
----
Ms. Fedor is using a non-standard definition of "protected," in which
choosing not to murder someone is considered protection. She's also
equating the death of human beings and game animals, but that's grist for
another discussion.
http://www.newsweek.com:80/nw-srv/printed/int/socu/ev0118_1.htm
--
+ Les Jones + 56K Modem Home Page + http://www.56k.com/ +
-= email address modified. with Pig Latin! =-
A.R.B.
Howdy to you three people who are still reading this thread. I must
admit I thought there'd be a very good chance I would go my whole life
without hearing those nine words, but lo and behold! Who am I to let
that invitation pass?
Actually the reason I mentioned the War of 1812-1814 is that it
really brings up the ol' 'history book syndrome' even stronger than does
the American Revolutionary War. With the Revolutionary War, historians
-amateur and otherwise- can wrestle over all sorts of finer points of
the conflict but the broad result is hard to argue. The revolutionaries
expelled the Redcoats and formed a new nation of their own... tough to
sugarcoat that one even for an anglophile.
The War of 1812-1814 is a little more ambiguous and I've heard that it
is addressed very fleetingly if at all in the American educational
system. When it is addressed it is called insignificant and maybe a
slight victory for the Yanks or at worse a tie. 'Sure, it spawned a
national anthem, a few neat shipwrecks to be raised 170-180 years later,
a nice little tune by Johnny Horton ("1814 took a little trip, along
with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip...") but nothing really
terribly important'. The Canadian view is understandably a bit
different.
The Civil War of 50 years later eclipsed the earlier conflict in
American cultural and historical mythology (and with good reason) but
for Canada the last major battles (with apologies to the Fenian Raids,
the Revolts of 1848, and the Riel Rebellion, to name a few) played out
on its soil were during the War of 1812-1814 (as I cross my fingers and
hope I'll still be able to type that 10 years from now). As such, our
cultural folklore has more than a few War of 1812-related elements, from
Laura Secord (our Paul Revere) who walked miles to warn the British of
an impending American attack, to the burning of York (present-day
Toronto) and the subsequent burning of the White House in Washington
D.C., and even the giving of a barrel of gunpowder by St. Stephen, New
Brunswick to its neighbour Calais, Maine for July 4th celebrations. In
short, it has an historical presence in Canada (at least for those who
pay any attention at all to that sort of thing) that I suspect it lacks
in most of the USA.
At any rate, I'll spare everyone a blow-by-blow breakdown of the
War of 1812-14 and just say my point was that it is a conflict that both
nations' history books spin to make it sound like they came out on top.
All I'll say is that a boatload of lads sailed out of Halifax, Nova
Scotia to Washington D.C., torched the White House and went home...
that's good enough for me. :) But then again, I am a product of the
Canadian educational system. :^D
Cheers,
Farmboy
Eugene Miya
Stephen W. Anderson <swaDELET...@rockymountnc.com> wrote:
>On the contrary, you'd think whoever did it doesn't realize that.
Oh, dumber things have happened.
>Or do you have some more subtle layer of plot in mind?
Nothing specific. Merely the history of humanity.
>Eugene Miya wrote in message <7132n4$7...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
>>Someplace has to be a sacriface area.
>>Who ever did it, has to realize that.
grennels
And Genghis Khans piles of skulls?
The Hashassins of the middle east?
Not just yesterday.
I think terrorism has been around awhile.
A.R.B.
>I just thought it was round 2 of the revolution.
Howdy,
Wow, thanks for the interest! Actually I suppose since the War of
1812-1814 was between the two antagonists of that earlier conflict and
was fought in roughly the same geographical area, one could sort of say
that. The two conflicts were 35 or so years apart, though. By the time
this war rolled around it seems more of a case of two 'empires' (one
full-fledged one and one nascent but with very clear expansionist goals-
i.e. the Manifest Destiny espoused by Monroe and Madison) rubbing
shoulders on the same continent. And oh yeah, the British blockaded
American ports to enforce the embargo on Napoleon's European empire and
press-ganged a few American sailor's from time to time... but judging by
the American politics of the day it seems apparent the Yanks declared
war to try to get an unobstructed shot at expanding into the whole of
the northern part of the North American continent.
The Battle of the Plains of Abraham took place 50+ years earlier in
1759 during the Seven Years War (one of the long series of conflicts
between the French and English mostly in Europe but spilling over this
way by times). It was the pivotal battle in North America that broke for
good the French control of Canada. FWIT, the battle itself was pretty
groovy...it would make a good movie (hmmm... Tommy Lee Jones scaling a
cliff as General Wolfe?...nah).
Cheers,
Farmboy
Robb McLeod
>Eugene Miya (eug...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: In article <71dqtd$jg2$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
>: Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>: >Eugene Miya (eug...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: >: "God is on the side with the heaviest artillery."
>: >: --Napoleon
>: >Eugene, striking the nail right on the head again...
>
>: No, that was the voice of my HS calculus teacher in my brain.
>: Just a mime.
>
>Still, it seemed a highly appropriate quote given the subject matter.
>
>So, to me, you hit the nail right on the head, no matter where the
>idea for the quote sprang from.
Actually, I think Eugene is mixing quotes. Napoleon has said "It is
with artillery war is made", and someone during the Napoleonic-era
started "God is on the side of the Big Battalions."
Of course, Stalin made a very wity remark on these quotations, "How
many divisions has the Pope?"
--
Robb McLeod
rmc...@uvic.ca
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters would eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
Now - thanks to the Internet - we know this is simply not true."
Eugene Miya
>Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
>Rocky: Oh no, not *that* again.
A benchmark my dear boy Sherman. A benchmark.
s...@rockymountnc.com
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote:
> >On the contrary, you'd think whoever did it doesn't realize that.
>
> Oh, dumber things have happened.
>
> >Or do you have some more subtle layer of plot in mind?
>
> Nothing specific. Merely the history of humanity.
Cynic.
Stephen W. Anderson
Rocky Mount, NC
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Eugene Miya
>In article <71ljel$5...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
> eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote:
>> Nothing specific. Merely the history of humanity.
>
>Cynic.
That's "Resident Cynic."
At least that's what the tee-shirt says.
Eugene Miya
Robb McLeod <anti...@antispam.uvic.ca> wrote:
>On 2 Nov 1998 23:26:47 GMT, gr...@black.kilchis.com (Greg Rose) wrote:
>>Eugene Miya (eug...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>>: In article <71dqtd$jg2$1...@nntp.or.nw.verio.net>,
>>: Greg Rose <gr...@black.kilchis.com> wrote:
>>: >Eugene Miya (eug...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>>: >: "God is on the side with the heaviest artillery."
>>: >: --Napoleon
>>: >Eugene, striking the nail right on the head again...
>>: No, that was the voice of my HS calculus teacher in my brain.
>>: Just a mime.
>>Still, it seemed a highly appropriate quote given the subject matter.
>>
>>So, to me, you hit the nail right on the head, no matter where the
>>idea for the quote sprang from.
>
>Actually, I think Eugene is mixing quotes. Napoleon has said "It is
>with artillery war is made", and someone during the Napoleonic-era
>started "God is on the side of the Big Battalions."
Well that was Mr. Albano who made/or mixed. I merely remembered the meme.
>Of course, Stalin made a very witty remark on these quotations,
>"How many divisions has the Pope?"
Well, another one about the relativism of morality (I am guessing)
came from one of my HS English teachers who was also one of my two
outdoor mentors (he passed away recently, but I've yet to panel 16 him).
It had to do with Grand Admiral Karl Doerntz (sp) at his trial at
Nurmemberg after WWII [there: Godwin's Law invoked]. He got off with
the lightest sentence: 10 years in prison. As head of the U-boat command,
the English wanted to hang him for the "women and children" who suffered
at his ships torpedos and the unfair nature of submarine warfare skulking
around and what not. The Germans should have saved those innocent
people, etc. etc.
But at his trial, the Admiral asked what American submarine commanders
did with the same situation in the Pacific when it came to Japanese freighters.
He basically got dead silence.
I read his book recently. Interesting.
Anyways, my mentor knew well enough the balance and the inconsistencies
(some say hypocracies, but that's too emotion laden) found in life.
This mentor lived a pretty amazing outdoor life from being a hobo
to working briefly for Indian education with one equally amazing woman
(Ms. Kinmont). I spoke on his behalf at his second (of three) retirements.
There are stories (e.g., sci-fi) about turnabout morality.
Don't forget, it's not Xxxxx, its Vail.
Send people to Vail.
Remember Pogo: We've met the enemy, and he is us.
root...@teleport.com
don't know if this would be the correct term, aides. Stalin was deep in
his cups, as he was apparently wont to do, and came up with the idea of
crucifying all of the Catholics in the Soviet Union. Nailing 'em up to
the telephone poles on the roads leading into Moscow, I believe. When
his aide suggested that the Pope might not be down with that, Stalin
replied "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
A pragmatic man, if nothing else.
Eugene Miya
Ah! Improved context. Very good.
>A pragmatic man, if nothing else.
It does not matter whether it is a black cat or a white cat,
so long as it catches the mouse.
--Deng Xiaoping