Should the term Terrorism be re-defined?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, yeah there is

I'm talking non-fictional. Since eco-terrorism has been a term since the 1960's there probably have been real life examples of these people commiting actual violence for a cause they believe deeply in, but I'm too lazy to seek out such examples.

Besides knowing how Google operates nowadays I wouldn't be surprised if they purposelly censored out any sources about this type of terrorism. We all know that FOX is full of s**t and serves as propaganda for the Far Right but they don't have anywhere near the kind of control over information that Google does.

Same goes for Facebook and Microsoft.

And it's why I don't believe everything I read online anymore. The internet is becoming a tool for propaganda in the same manner that the radio was. This is just a sad fact in today's world.

The right conveniently label social justice dissent as terrorism.

Peta does vandalism. Breaks into mink farms and sets the domestics minks free. Vandalism (distruction of property) counts as "violence". So that could be called "terrorism" and "eco terrorism". Ironically the domestic minks end up dying ..because they cant survive...so it actually cause animal cruelty. So there is that "collateral damage" as well.

Vandalism is not terrorism.

I can recall reading about people who hammered large nails into the trunks of trees so that lumberers would be seriously injured doing their jobs. Although fictional, there was a film starring Jesse Eisenberg in which a group planned to blow up a dam, which would have undoubtedly caused casualties downstream.

Those would be examples of ecoterrorism.

Vandalism to a business is not quite the same "terror" as burning a cross on somebody's lawn. For one thing the farmers are probably insured.

The primary goal of spiking is to deter the cutting to begin with, it doesn't work without advertising that it's been done.

But, beyond that, the primary target is mill equipment, not loggers or their equipment.