This Site exposes the two types of terrorism that cause Americans loss of life and property.

International Terrorism

Eco Terrorism – Focusing on the exploits of IWW

Eco-terrorism is a controversial term applied to acts of violence or sabotage ^[1][2] committed in support of ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes against persons or their property. It has also been used to describe financial losses incurred through boycott and protest activities^{[citation needed]}.

Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.” ^[3] The FBI has credited to eco-terrorism 200 million dollars in property damage from 2003 and 2008, and a majority of states within the USA have introduced laws aimed at eco-terrorism.^[4]

Application of the term

The acts described by law enforcement organizations as eco-terrorism vary widely. Many involve sabotage of equipment and unmanned facilities using arson. Tree spiking, the embedding of metal spikes in trees, is sometimes described as eco-terrorism, in part for its tendency to not just damage property but to induce serious injuries to laborers.

Acts of civil disobedience may be described as eco-terrorism. In 2003, a conservative Texas legislative reform group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), proposed the “Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” which defined an “animal rights or ecological terrorist organization” as “two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources.”^[5] The legislation has not been enacted.

[edit] Environmental Terrorism

Eco-terrorism has also been used to describe ecological destruction or environmental terrorism. Canadian environmentalist Paul Watson who has been accused of eco-terrorism himself as founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society^[6] countered with his own definition: “an act that terrorizes other species and threatens the ecological systems of the planet”.^[7] Watson accused Japanese Whalers of eco-terrorism, saying “They are the real eco-terrorists. They terrorise the environment.”^[8][9] David Suzuki described the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, as an “eco-terrorist” for failing to abide by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.^[10] Environmentalists have accused corporations ranging from ExxonMobil ^[11] and General Electric to McDonalds^[12][13] of eco-terrorism.

In the case of Peter Daniel Young, the release of minks was called “animal enterprise terrorism.”^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Groups accused of ecoterrorism

Organizations that have been labeled as “eco-terrorists” in the United States include the Animal Liberation Front (ALF),^[14] and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF),^[14]. The FBI in 2001 named the ELF as “one of the most active extremist elements in the United States”, and a “terrorist threat,”^[14] although they publicly disavow harm to humans or animals.^[15][16]. The Greenpeace organization has also been implicated (and in some cases indicted) in eco-terrorism and associated unlawful use of monies as well as anti-piracy laws concerning unlawful boarding of private vessels on the high seas.^[17]

In a 2002 testimony to the US Congress, an FBI official mentioned the actions of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the context of eco-terrorism.^[6]

A number of “local” organizations have also been indicted under US Federal laws related to eco-terrorism. These include, among others, the group “Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.” ^[18]

Ideologies

• Anarcho-primitivism
• Green anarchism
• Radical environmentalism

Individuals Accused of Eco-Terrorism

• Tre Arrow
• Rod Coronado
• Wiebo Ludwig
• Jeff Luers and William Cottrell
• Marie Mason
• Eric McDavid – Convicted of conspiracy to commit what the FBI labeled an eco-terrorist plot.^[20]
• Daniel McGowan – Convicted of participation in an arson at a lumber company.^[21]
• William C. Rodgers
• Darren Thurston
• Peter Daniel Young
• Paul Watson
• Theodore Kaczynski

International Terrorism

International Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.^[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.^[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.^[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.^[4]

The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used.^[6] The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state’s own use of terror against them. A less politically and emotionally charged, and better defined, term (used not only for terrorists, and not including all those who have been described as terrorists) is violent non-state actor.

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[7] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[8]

Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy, and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators.

Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence”. However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.^[12]

Perpetrated for a political goal – Something that many acts of terrorism have in common is a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or “cosmic”^[13] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. One definition that combines the key elements was developed at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies by Carsten Bockstette: “Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.” ^[14]

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm’s way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific “symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings” that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists’ goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.^[15]

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness^[16] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus “lawful”) and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a “legitimate” government; “legitimacy” and “lawfulness” are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.^{[17][18][19][20]} For these reasons, this criterion is not universally accepted; most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

Links

Terrorist Latest

• Free Geek E-waste posses TOXIC DUST to Portland neighborhood!