Comments on: Groups Responsible for Most Terrorist Attacks in the United States, 2001-2011

By: Toddy Cat

Toddy Cat — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:39:54 +0000

“without the mass casualties that the true terrorists strive for”

The “No True Terrorist” fallacy raises it’s head once again…

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:25:00 +0000

Toddy Cat is correct that intentionality is what matters — for the terrorist, casualties are merely a means to an end. This is precisely the same as in any other form of war. As Clausewitz pointed out, killing the enemy’s military is merely the most reliable means of achieving the real end of convincing their leadership to let you have your way.

Also, even if you are correct that animal-rights and environmental activists have not killed and have not attempted to kill anyone (a most dubious assertion, especially on the latter front) does destruction of property not count? If, while you’re at work, someone burns your house down to terrify you into acceding to their wishes on some subject, is that not terrorism? If another nation were to destroy a number of US satellites, would that not be an act of war despite no one being killed?

Also, the bit about them merely being “engaged in politics” was misleading. Political conflict is a spectrum with friendly suggestion at one end and genocide at the other. We don’t normally include the sabotage of equipment, burning of homes and vehicles, etc. as being part of politics as usual, so why should we suddenly make an exception for the ELF?

By: Toddy Cat

Toddy Cat — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:02:17 +0000

People who attempt to terrify people by their actions, like spiking trees, are terrorists. And anyone who uses the term “discourse” is automatically suspect, in my book. Your attitude has been noted, Comrade…

By: Dave Murchison

Dave Murchison — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:46:15 +0000

Using the word ‘terrorism’ for animal rights activism makes no sense. People can be irritating, destructive of property, and in your face without the mass casualties that the true terrorists strive for. Groups that have irritated you for decades, but who have killed no one and attempted to kill no one are engaged in politics. People who brand them as terrorists are also engaged in politics. But you degrade the language and the discourse, and make a political solution harder to reach.

By: 271828

271828 — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 21:41:17 +0000

Given the slippery nature of the definition of “terror”, just about anything can qualify.

When everything is terror, nothing is terror.

By: Purpleslog

Purpleslog — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:00:09 +0000

Who is “The Justice Department”? Is that the USGOV DOJ? If so…huh…and what was the nature of the incident?

By: Bob Sykes

Bob Sykes — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:40:45 +0000

This does not surprise me in the least. I am surprised that Friends of the Earth did not make the list. If we add international attacks, Greenpeace will make the list.

The fact is that all environmentalist and animal rights groups (including the national Humane Society) are terrorist groups.

When I was teaching environmental engineering and science at a major university, I always included a cautionary lecture on violent environmentalists to warn students of the dangers of joining these groups.