Our society is messed up!

I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change. --- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---

Prosecuting arsonists is bad.

I see, that's not perverted at all. Radicalism finally makes sense.

It should also be noted that not only do these ecotage groups have a strict no-harm policy, but no person has ever been actually harmed or killed by them.

If your beliefs are valuable enough for others to adopt them and live their lives accordingly, you should be able to present strong rational defense of those beliefs. You should be able to persuade the majority to follow your lead.

The violence displayed by the ELF activists is a reflection of their intellectual and physcial laziness. They preferred the scare tactics of a bully over the power of education.

Arson is not a small matter. It is terrorism.

Suppose I created and wish to distribute a GM plant that will eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical, a chemical that shortens lives, causes cancer, or causes birth defects... not just to protect humans, but to protect wildlife.  And suppose there is an environmental organization spreading misinformation and standing in the way of release of this GM plant that will save lives and reduce suffering. Would it be okay for me to walk down to their office and lob a molotov cocktail through the front window... just as a warning? After all, the office building is just property and the goal would be to protect human and other creatures' lives.

Who needs law and order when every single one of us knows, really KNOWS, what's best for all of us and the rest of Earth's inhabitants? Right?

   1.  Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
   2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
   3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
   4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
   5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
   6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Destroying property is an act of violence - stop being a moron.

The ELF and the ALF are eco terrorists, determined to impose their morality not through legislation, but rather through acts of violence.

Victory in Pattani

So you consider violence is something that happens quickly then, Mad Mac?  Because some of us consider Monsanto to be terrorists, despite their use of "legislation" (lobbyists) to get what they want.  Dupont, GE, GM, they're all terrorists too.  Is giving people cancer violence?  Would you consider me violent if I slowly poisoned a person to the point that they required a lump removed from their breast?  What if I just walked up to them and gouged them with a knife then?

What's more violent, Mac, a 50-cal. machine gun or Agent Orange?  Which killed (and is still killing) more people?

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

Can't get in the way of the incineration of trees and removal of all peoples from the forests. The preservationist party line.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Wolverine, given the net gain for the environment, could I take matters into my own hands and destroy the gentleman's organic farm to put an end to the use of rotenone? Perhaps it would serve as a warning to others who use toxic compounds and lie to people about their safety. Legislation to eliminate ALL toxic chemicals, synthetic and natural, does not appear to be in the works.

The killers, those who devote land to GROWING POISON INSTEAD OF FOOD, are not motivated to change their ways and find better means of controlling pests. They are as guilty of harming our environment as those who manufacture poison and dump it in our air and water, especially when there are genetically modified plants available that could end the use of ALL poinson. They are as guilty as those who might grow biofuel instead of food. Vast amounts of land in South America, Africa, and Asia are devoted to growing crops as a source of "environmentally-friendly" pesticides. Trees are cut down to grow the plants we get rotenone, pyrethrin, and other natural pesticides from. Is ELF recruiting people to destroy those industrial ag operations?

Do you advocate the use of violence against ALL suppliers and users of toxic chemicals?

When you take away industrial scale agriculture (and associated GM organisms and chemicals) the only way to produce enough food to feed our current population is to bring another 50 million people into the profession of farming.  My parents sold off their land in a dying community because our current policies and unsustainable chemical/energy-intensive agriculture make it impossible to make ends meet.

You can feed your family with 1/4 to 1/2 acre of potatoes.  You can cultivate that by hand with no animal/mechanical labor.  You just can't afford a shiny new car, new clothes, fancy consumer goods in disposable bottles, etc.  Our entire way of life needs to change to become more sustainable.  But GM crops create more problems than they solve.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

Arson is violent
Terrorism is violent
Therefore arson is terrorism.

By the same token an exhausted parent slapping a recalcitrant toddler is terrorism, the school bully twisting arms to get his schoolmates lunch money is terrorism. I'm sorry, but none of these has the moral equivalence of  setting off a bomb in a crowded city marketplace packed with innocent persons of all ages. Blurring distinctions between different kinds and degrees of violent act serves no discernible moral, judicial or ethical purpose and degrades our common language and culture.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Thank you guys, I now understand.

Crime no longer exists, the society does not care what I do to you people. Maybe that's the way it should be.

Now, you can happily use your own twisted logic and make up your own labels for people and companies, and by doing so you join the ranks of wolverine, who has ZERO credibility in any discussion.

Now, if you "poured" acid rain on a statue, a drop at a time, yes that would be violence. It is deliberate in nature. If it's not deliberate, then that's another story. Just as if I am hunting and I shoot at a bear and miss, but 500 yards further down range the bullet strikes and kills someone I couldn't see.......... then that's not an act of violence.

And without a doubt, the .50 cal has killed a lot more people than Agent Orange. But Agent Orange was a defoliant used in wartime. Concerns about secondary effects took a back seat to combat concerns. Welcome to the real world kid.

Victory in Pattani

Those people who are trying to defend these guys should be ashamed of themselves.

The government informant/provocateur got away?  The "lookout" got prison time.

Yes, by all means, keep on listening to the G-men you all.  Property destruction is fun and exciting.  

But of course they forget to tell you.  The government informants who encourage the crimes that tar environmentalism never go to trial.  kind of convenient.

Automatically assume that anyone proposing "ecotage" is a G-man, a plant to destroy the environmental cause.  Expose these shills in public the moment they appear.

If they really aren't G-men, no big deal, they should still be discredited before they harm the cause.  

Non-violence is the only way to go.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Let's be clear. I do not support this action of ELF AT ALL. It was a violent act which I cannot condone, irrespective of whether I may or may not sympathize with their cause. But neither do I support flattening the criminal justice system to equate all forms of politically-motivated direct action with terrorism. Terrorism means being deterred from your peaceful daily business for fear of serious physical harm that may be deliberately and randomly inflicted on your person. Bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism. Breaking into an abortion clinic and destroying its equipment and records, while a crime, is not.

So lay off my savings account, OK?

Geez.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

And Amazing, it's true that people who instigate these types of actions are often government provocateurs, but whether the actions are effective or counterproductive is a strategic and tactical issue, not a moral one.  I've never argued that ecotage is generally effective, I just don't know.  I do know that spiking trees has saved forests, and in those cases I totally support that action.  In any case, I want to see destruction of the natural environment and killing of non-humans (except to eat them) ended, so my heart is definitely with these people, even if I don't agree with what they did for strategic or tactical reasons.

As to Wisc's hypothetical re GE plants being better for the environment, that instance would be a legitimate issue if it were true.  However, the FACT is that GE plants are PESTICIDE resistant, so they cause more poisoning of the Earth, not less.  And Wisc shows his/her true colors here, complaining about non-petroleum-based pesticides while saying nothing about the petroleum-based ones, which are exponentially more prevalent.  I don't support use of any pesticides or even agriculture, but the worst of it is commercial chemical mono crop agriculture, which completely destroys the land and most native wildlife.

Finally, to Mad Mac.  I understand why you think I have "zero credibility" with you: you exemplify the typical white man's ideals, which value property over the natural environment and all life except possibly human.  (And by "white" I do not mean the color of one's skin, but instead one's attitudes, which come from Europeans but unfortunately have been adopted by others.)  There are many of us who will NEVER accept the idea that mere property destruction is violent, but even among those who do our position is credible to those who understand that life is more important than property, even if it's not human life.

"And Wisc shows his/her true colors here, complaining about non-petroleum-based pesticides while saying nothing about the petroleum-based ones, which are exponentially more prevalent."

I've repeatedly, in this thread and other, called for elimination of ALL pesticides. synthetic and natural.

See above...

"Suppose I created and wish to distribute a GM plant that will eliminate the manufacture and use of a particularly nasty chemical, a chemical that shortens lives, causes cancer, or causes birth defects... not just to protect humans, but to protect wildlife."

"...zero use of chemicals..."

"He could grow this plant using sustainable practices... NO use of chemicals."

"Legislation to eliminate ALL toxic chemicals, synthetic and natural, does not appear to be in the works."

"...those who devote land to GROWING POISON INSTEAD OF FOOD, are not motivated to change their ways and find better means of controlling pests. They are as guilty of harming our environment as those who manufacture poison and dump it in our air and water..."

If you examine my remarks criticizing the use of chemicals for spraying urban areas for agricultural pests, you'll notice I call for the elimination of ALL toxic chemicals, natural and synthetic.

If you examine my questions about the banning of pesticides in Canada, you'll notice I support this with the caveat that it include ALL toxic chemicals, natural and synthetic. Most people I've spoken with on this matter are under the illusion that if a pesticide is natural it must be safe. Who's propagating this myth?

So, wolverine, we disagree regarding the value of GMOs. I respect you and value your opinions on this and other matters. But please don't paint me as a blind supporter of all GMOs and synthetic chemicals.

I'm very selective and do not believe GMOs, synthetic chemicals, non-GMOs, natural chemicals, or any other specific technology is a silver bullet.  I have said that repeatedly ever since I started posting comments on this website.

In my opinion, there are good GMOs and there are bad GMOs. There are good synthetic chemicals and there are bad ones. There are good organic practices and there are cases where a GMO might be even better. There are good natural pesticides and there are extremely toxic natural pesticides that should be banned this minute.

Contrary to what you've apparently concluded -- though I really don't know how -- I'm interested in using the best technology we have to reduce harm to the environment and all beings around us. I am not an industry shill. I am not focused on preserving only human life. And I'm certainly not focused on protecting property.

I wish to see the elimination of synthetic pesticides as much as you do. And I want to see the elimination of supposedly safe natural alternatives.

"However, the FACT is that GE plants are PESTICIDE resistant, so they cause more poisoning of the Earth, not less."

... I have to respond.

I helped engineer a potato that is resistant to the fungus that causes late blight. We transferred a gene from a wild relative of the cultivated potato to several different varieties of cultivated potato. The gene is very similar to a gene found in cultivated potatoes.

These GE plants are NOT engineered to be pesticide resistant. They actually reduce the use of chemicals because the farmers no longer have to repeatedly spray highly toxic fungicides on their fields. The farmers spend less to grow more and reduce their exposure to pesticides. The environment benefits because there is no collateral damage to beneficial fungi in or around the fields, or to animal life in or around the fields.

We apparently agree on this to a certain point, at which we part ways.  I fully agree that all pesticide use should be banned.  However, I make this distinction:  petroleum-based chemicals are always harmful, whereas a chemical made from a plant at least has a chance to be significantly less so.  I fully realize that plant-based chemicals can also be very environmentally harmful when refined, concentrated, and used by humans in ways that they would not exist in nature, but that's completely different than creating chemicals from petroleum that would not exist in nature at all to any degree.

I think our differences on this issue stem from our attitudes toward technology.  You apparently like technology, at least to some extent, while I see technology as being a large part of the problem of destruction of the natural world.  (I realize that some technologies like solar power are less harmful than others like mining and burning coal or uranium, but the Earth would be better off without any of it.)

If you plant potatoes in the same plot of earth again and again, year after year, it's almost guaranteed that without some chemical (or GM), the spores in the soil will re-infect the crop each year.

Then the Dept. of Agriculture came in and told all these Acadian farmers that the way they'd been doing it the past 200 years wasn't profitable enough.  So they bought big tractors, sprayers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers...

Today, most farmers in northern Maine make more money at the paper mill than they do on their farms.  GM is just another chapter in Big Ag history.  It's not going to solve anything in the long run.  We need to get back to planting buckwheat and oats.  And perhaps the dozens of varieties of (lower yield) healthy potatoes we had before Yukon Gold and Russet took over the grocery stores.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

It seems to me you want humans to turn the clock back 50,000 years, and then stay there. At that point, we wait until the sun explodes or a massive meteor wipes out all life on earth.......... Lovely vision for the future.

Victory in Pattani

Could it have something to do with the fact that we no longer rely on horses for transportation? I imagine the profit from certain grains plummeted once we reduced our dependence on draft animals.

What do organic farmers do to control blight? According to the ATTRA site, there is not much they can do, except not grow potatoes in certain areas. What might they include in a rotation and still earn a living from their fields? Or should we just stop growing potatoes?

International trade has also contributed to the problem by spreading pest organisms around the globe. Perhaps today's farmers see increased weed, disease, and pest pressure from organisms that were not a problem a hundred years ago.

What do we have here, another day dreamer dreaming of agricultural utopia?

Get off the crack and wake up. The world can no longer function without modern agriculture. Half the population would starve to death.

Victory in Pattani

The end of cheap energy changes everything.  You can create GM crops but they're not gonna grow in huge monoculture plots unless you continue using the same energy-intensive, fertilizer-intensive techniques.  

Without the cheap energy and nitrogen, you have to use organic techniques for keeping the soil fertile, including crop rotation.  And done right, that'll solve the blight problem.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

Idaho wouldn't be growing thousands of acres of Russets without artificially cheap water and transporation costs to the east coast.  And it would make ZERO sense to be growing alfalfa in Utah if they treated water as the precious commodity that it is.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

"... authorities said the fire mostly destroyed or damaged work on endangered species, wetlands restoration, and urban forestry and gardening. Managers of an Oregon poplar nursery -- where arsonists set fires and left the spray-painted words "You cannot control what is wild" and "ELF" -- said they did not grow genetically engineered trees there, though the land used to be owned by a university genetics group."

Dear ELF supporters, do you consider this acceptable collateral damage, though no lives were threatened, in the war against GMOs. If ELF occasionally makes mistakes like this, do you really want to encourage people to take matters into their own hands to defend the Earth? Or was there a net gain for the Earth, though "the fire mostly destroyed or damaged work on endangered species, wetlands restoration, and urban forestry and gardening"?

A bigger issue is why do you and others who care about the natural environment focus so much on people who are willing to risk their freedom to defend it if they get caught?  Assuming, strictly for the sake of argument, that all the harms claimed really occurred and that there were no GE experiments destroyed or even taking place there, what's up with all the venom and vitriol?  Why isn't that same anger directed toward those who are destroying the planet instead of those who are trying to stop that destruction?  That's the main thing that upsets me about the comments I read here.

However, I do not believe violence, even on a small scale, is helpful in this situation. Accidents happen. There could have been students working in that lab, even at very late or very early hours. I do not believe it is my right, ELF's right, a religious fundamentalists right to decide some innocent person should be a martyr for their cause. Furthermore, violence sets an example for others to follow and those people might not be so restrained or careful to ensure only property is damaged. I'm not convinced anyone among us is qualified to decide when killing innocent people -- even accidentally -- is for the greater good. Finally, when environmentalist employ violence, they provide the far-right and not-so-far-right with an opportunity to ridicule them and crack down on all their behavior. It is important to resist the urge to violently strike out, at an level.

Again, their violence and use of terrorism is minor in the grand scheme of things. But it is a slippery slope. Where DO we draw a line? Who decides where that line is? What causes an activists to escalate their activity from bombing an empty building, through various levels, to flying planes into building containing thousands of people?

In my opinion, the use of violence to override law and order to accomplish a goal one truly believes in -- though not enough other people see the light to accomplish the goal via legislation -- is just TOO DANGEROUS to be condoned during the present time. I don't want ELF to engage in such behavior and I certainly don't want our government to engage in such behavior.

I guess it is sort of like your objection to GMOs. Some might be useful, but can we really take a chance by encouraging the use of "good" ones? The potential for abuse and unintended consequences is simply too frightening.

Thus, I feel it up to everyone who might agree with me to do what they can to end the cycle of violence, at every level, plaguing human civilization.

Because these actions are coming from idiots.

Maybe we should legally block timber sale areas from public use, due to safety, eh?!?! More prison time for violent people, eh?!?! Put me in jail for "eco-forestry"?!?! Forcibly remove people from forests for their own safety so that fires can burn "free range"??!! (Catastrophically-speaking)

Currently, I'm working on an aspen delineation project to improve aspen stand health. Of course, that goes against the preservationist "party line". If it were up to wolverine, I'd be doing 15 years to life for "tree murder".

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Some folks here think it is okay to torch a lab that MIGHT be harboring research devoted to producing GMOs. They view GMOs, correctly or incorrectly, as threat to our environment. And they apparently don't mind that the arsonists were a bit careless in making sure they struck the correct target. Message sent. Mission accomplished.

I'll try another example, one I might have mentioned before. Sorry, but I can't find my previous comments on specific matters by using the Grist search engine, so I'll just try again. You might have read this before.

Anyway...

Based on my personal experience trying to rescue, restore, and expand a two-acre remnant of short-grass praire, my experience searching through another acre of exotic brush where I've found a variety of native prairie plants barely surviving in the shade, and what I've learned from others trying to restore midwest savanna or grassland, the threat to biodiversity is not GMOs. The threat is exotic invasive species.

More specifically, I invest a lot of time combating honey suckle and sweet clover, as well as some other noxious exotic plants. Yet, there are people selling and planting honey suckle and sweet clover!

Were I confindent enough in my view that exotic plants are EVIL, were I irritated by long days in the hot sun trying to suppress them, were I willing to bypass the legislative process and take matters into my own hands, would those supporting ELF applaud an effort to set up an organization dedicated to... torching nurseries and garden centers that sell exotic species that MIGHT be invasive, destroying fields of intentionally planted sweet clover (using natural organic herbicides or mechanical means, of course), and permanently disabling the tractors and planting machinery of farmers (conventional or organic) who refuse to stop spreading what I consider and have witnessed to be awful weeds (however useful they might be for building soil)?

The goal would be to save the Earth.

Would it be heroic or woud it be terrorism?

Do you think my fellow citizens would respond by changing their evil ways? Or would I end up in prison, one less person actually trying to protect a bit of biodviersity and my fellow citizens more hostile toward environmentalists than ever before?

[Now that I've typed this, I fear Wolverine might actually say "Go for it!" Yikes!]

Violence begets violence. Were I willing to employ violence, how could I possibly criticize others when they decide to torch an organization's office, or church, or shelter, or clinic, et cetera because they are convinced that the organization is harming their view of what the Earth's environment should be like.

For every person who believes, perhaps quite correcty, that we should restore as much of the natural world as possibe, by force if necessary, I'll bet there is another person who confidently believes we should subdue the natural world and not hesitate to eliminate anyone who gets in their way.

I don't think this is a war that those who care about nature and wish to protect other beings can win. So I suggest not starting it.

... tired of violence.

... tired of bullies.

... tired of hypocrites.

... tired of the self-righteous.

... tired of manifestos.

... tired of conflict. Inherited! Not even original!

... tired of lies.

... tired of spin.

... tired of misinformation.

... tired of games.

... tired of war... oh... already mentioned that.

... tired.

HOW DO WE STOP THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE THAT IS DESTROYING OUR PLANET?????

[Ban me for being a troll if you must, Mr. Roberts, but I'm going to post remarks like this everytime the ELF thing comes up. I can't help it. Grist has still not added "violence", "war", or a similar term to its topic cloud. Yet violence and war are the greatest threats to our environment. They drain our treasury, destroy habitat, disrupt agriculture, distract us from solving serious problems, prevent us from cooperating to protect natural resources, empower ruthless corporations and despots, provide an excuse for ignoring other threats to our environment, blah, blah, blah... and what is condoned on a small scale (ELF) simply encourages the same behavior on a larger scale (Iraq).]

Putting environmentalists and the movement at risk of being set up by informants.  Those who call for violence might as well be working for bushco.  Because they are in reality, wether they know it or not.

Ghandi and King showed the way forward and Barack is taking that path.  Become the change you wish to see in the world.  That's how we are going to win.

If you don't get it, hit the road jack, we don't want your "help".  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Again, (ELF's) violence and use of terrorism is minor in the grand scheme of things. But it is a slippery slope.

Torching a church, mosque, or synagogue to let someone know they should go practice their religion elsewhere, even if no one is physically threatened, is terrorism.

Torching the house of a person you don't agree with, just to "teach them a lesson", even if you warn them to get out before you set fire to it, is terrorism.

Marching through a neighborhood, breaking windows of homes and businesses to encourage peope to go live elsewhere, even if you don't intend to hit any of them with stones and bust their heads open, is terrorism.

Torching a laboratory to let someone know they should practice their science elsewhere, or not at all, even if no one else is physically threatened, is terrorism.

My first example, destroying the office of an organization clearly spreading misinformation to motivate them to reconsider what they are doing would be terrorism.

My second example, destroying the property of people growing and distributing invasive species to motivate them to stop doing so would be terrorism.

In my opinion...

Terrorism is the threat or use of violence to change human behavior. Terrorism is the practice of creating fear in your opponent, hoping to change their behavior, when reason has not  convinced them that your views are the correct views.

I do not want to live in a world where terrorism is an acceptable means of resolving disputes.

I'll grasp for another example.... I love trees as much as you do, but there are places we shouldn't plant them. If I observed you planting trees throughout a natural grassland, asked you to stop, and you refused... would it be okay if I torched your shed or truck to discourage further tree planting? If you continued planting trees, could I torch something else to reinforce the message? When would this become terrorism?

1.    the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.    the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.    a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

The actions of these folks falls under number 1.  They burned a building to send a political message.

@ spaceshaper:

I don't know about you, but if someone torched my life's work I would be pretty terrorized.  It's not just a property issue.  It's a work issue.  Meaning, humans identify very strongly with the work they do, even if they don't like it (which is why it's so depressing to be fired even if you didn't like your job).  So when someone comes up and destroys your life's work, work that is very important to you, work that you devote yourself to, well, that's shattering.

@ Wolverine

Technology is good.  It saves us much back-breaking, life shortening labor.  Don't knock it till you've had to to bear 13 kids, wash all their laundry by hand, cook all their food over a fire, not had a refrigerator to store fresh foods in, and had to keep a house clean amid all that.

I repeat, technology is good.

Terror..ism:  A political tactic and ideaology that wins popularity through the induction of unfounded fear of foreign enemies.  Foreign enemies of their own origination.  They supported both Saddam and Bin Laden, before they opposed them.

Like communism or facism, this ism tends to destroy human rights and  civilization.

Not an ism the eco movement would want to embrace.  Just say no to violence, fear, and criminal damage to property.  It's a dead end.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

: )

For the record, I would not view non-violent acts of civil disobedience as terrorism.

I wonder why ELF, so confident that they occupy the moral high ground, does not march through subdivisions and university campuses protesting against sprawl and GMOs. Why don't they stage peaceful sit-ins or chain themselves to laboratory doors? Why don't they serve as witnesses, documenting the horrors of sprawl and GMOs, thereby generating public outrage and pressure on our representatives to protect the environment? Do they send thoughtful editorials to the paper? Do they stand up at public meetings and demand discussion of issues? Do they attend public meetings?

I  think there is one reason they don't employ non-violent means... pure laziness. They don't want to invest time in gathering the facts to support their views, they don't want to invest time in engaging in civil disobedience, and they don't really want to discuss the issues with anyone. It is much easier -- unless they're caught -- to claim they're right, set fire to a building, and run away.

Saying that the ELF's actions encourage the war in Iraq, or any other action by those with money and power, is disingenuous.  The oil industry and military industrial complex people, supported at the time by a majority of Americans who are also culpable, would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether ELF even exists, and the latter had absolutely no effect on their policies.  And they will continue to destroy the Earth and other cultures, and kill and injure people to acquire and maintain their wealth and power regardless of the existence of ELF or other similar groups.  Groups like ELF and ALF are a REACTION to the bad human behavior toward the natural environment and animals.

With all this talk about terrorism, which again I don't consider any more legitimate than name-calling, let me propose a non-anthropocentric definition:  "Terrorism is any pollution of the air, water, or land, or killing of any species for any reason other than to eat it, or any destruction or harm to a natural habitat."  The rationale behind this definition is that all life is sacred and everything in the natural world is alive, so that any destruction of the natural world or killing of any species is the worst thing one can do.  This would make humans in general major terrorists.

As to your rhetorical question why those who commit ecotage don't use public means of more conventional protest, there's actually a simple answer:  People who commit any type of illegal activity that involves property destruction would be fools to hold themselves out publicly as supporters of the cause.  One either does one type of action or the other, but you don't want to make yourself known if you're going to destroy property.

Amazing,

While we often agree on issues here, we obviously strongly disagree on at least the moral aspects of this one.  But please stop lecturing about agents provocateurs etc.  I had a close friend who, along with several others, was convinced by an agent provocateur to try to take down a transmission tower of a nuclear power plant about 20 years ago.  My friend was one of the sweetest people I've ever known, and it was heartbreaking to know that she was suffering in prison for two or three years.  (Fortunately, she handled it very well and actually used it as a platform for environmental campaigning when she got out.)  I have been personally touched by this stuff and it's very insulting to read someone who's an environmental advocate constantly trashing these people as you do.  Again, I knew one of these people personally and she was not stupid, violent, or ill-informed.

Redambrosia99,

Technology can only be seen as a good thing if all you care about is humans.  From a non-human point of view, it's the worst thing ever to happen to the Earth and all life on it.  What benefit does anyone but a human get out of any technology?

Of course we have seen similar arguments made in the so-called war on drugs. And we can all see how well the policy of lump-it-all-together is working on that one.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

But insist they drop the violent talk.  Helen Caldicott, of all people, committed this mistake at the MIdwest Renewable Energy Fair last year.  She began speculating on how she would sabotage a reactor.

I was standing next to two people video taping her speech, with professional expensive equipment that didn't match their roadie appearance.  My impression was they were informants in disguise specifically sent to get any kind of this talk on tape.

Still don't know if my intuition was right.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

If you enjoy violence join the Army or become a boxer or ultimate fighter or something. Political violence is, and should be, relegated to affairs of state.

Victory in Pattani

Furthermore, state violence, always done on behalf of the ruling class, is the most illegitimate kind.  It's OK to kill people for oil, but not to destroy property to preserve life?  Gimme a break!

And for all of you who think property destruction is violence, consider this:  "Property" is what's left when life is killed and reduced to someone's possession.  I see absolutely no reason that property should be valued above or even equal to any life, including other species and the land, air, and water.

Yep, you should embrace that term and cherish it, because that is exactly what you are.

Senseless name-calling, for sure, but if you're saying things like:

"all life is sacred and everything in the natural world is alive"

Amen, brother, you're an Eco-Nazi with a religious twist. And guess what, that makes you a fanatic. Not a good place to be if you want to maintain your cool and move things forward, considering that most actions by fanatics tend to move civilizations backward.