|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| ELF members are vandals. They're arsonists. But they aren't terrorists. |
I disagree with this.
Although the ELF is not in the business of murdering people, they still commit their acts under a political message.
Perhaps they are not terrorists, maybe sabotours? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, "saboteurs" is accurate in many cases.
Also, about liberations (in response to something The Bobster said earlier), they do seem to be fairly rare nowadays. That's because the activists have to have good homes lined up for the animals in advance ... it takes an incredible amount of organization and planning, and as everyone here knows, it's hard enough to find homes for animals who've been rescued legally. Sabotage is another tactic that many ELF/ALF activists use to show their opposition to the exploitation of animals and the destruction of their habitat, and to deter people from doing business in those fields. But it would be wrong to confuse sabotage with violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| Perhaps they are not terrorists, maybe sabotours? |
Doesn't matter.
"Terrorists" has a nicer "knee-jerk" ring to it.
It usuallly illicits the correct "fear-based" Pavlovian response within people.
Mass hysteria! Duck & cover! Be afraid. Give up all rights!
Don't question "authority" ( no terrorists among their ranks ) 
The state will "protect" you ( just like it's always done )  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| The Random House definition isn't the only definition out there�and in this case, it's way too vague. People intimidate each other in all kinds of ways, for all kinds of reasons, and it would be ridiculous to apply the label "terrorist" in so many diverse situations. Therefore, we need to look for another reference book with a more serviceable definition. |
Yes, yes, there are many ways in which intimidation occurs, but we are talking about intimidation with a goal of producing political change. I'll be interested to hear your alternate reference book when you get around to providing one. Part of me can't help but suspect that you simply find it inconvenient that the tactics, goals and actions of a group you sympathize with also meets that definition.
| Quote: |
| because of the way it's used in common everyday English it's incredibly misleading to use it when the "criminals," or vigilantes or whatever you want to call them, have only targeted property as opposed to living beings. |
I think it's a bigot's mistake to assume, because of 9/11, that all terrorists are men with swarthy skin and hairy faces who subscribe to fanatical form of a religion they believe that asks them to kill people they don't know with the promise of heaven when their suicide mission is complete. Don't fall for that - terrorism has been around longer than the PLO and longer than the Zionist Liberation bombers who worked to create the state of Israel, longer than the IRA and longer than the anarchist "cells" that threw dynamite into crowds in London at the turn of the 20th century.
Bramble, sure, the proximate target might be inanimate private property, but the intent is to build fear and cause a change in people's actions. This is coercion. The use of fear is a bad thing for people to do, and violence is nearly always the wrong choice - I could no more support it than I could support Bush's invasion of Iraq. We have other options that don't involve guns, bombs and kerosene, even such nonviolent confrontation protests as lying down in front of a bulldozer.
And, by the way, those methods also have the added advantage that they actually do work. As a young man I went to protests against nuclear power plants that used nonviolent means, and there are no new facilities of that type being built or planned in the US now, and not for a while. The boycott campaign against S Africa was largely nonviolent, as was the civil rights and suffragette movements in America, and today apartheid is a footnote in history books and in the US we are getting close to choosing between a black man or a woman as major candidates for our nation's leader.
If the next time a "direct action" occurs results in the maiming or death of a child, or any human being (and it's possible you don't think much of our species, but I'll ask anyway) - will that be okay with you? Will you sniff and say, well, at least they weren't targeted? Will you say, "Well, sorry, but you can't make an omelette, etc"? Or will you reply, as some animal rights polemicists have, that none of us are truly innocent?
And when that day happens, if it hasn't already - ALF/ELF actions are self-reporting, so if someone does get hurt, they'd have to be caught as well - how will you then distuinguish between these groups and suicide bombers in the middle east or white supremicists who blow up federal office building in the US? And how will you justify your support?
| Quote: |
| Each ELF and ALF cell is independent; the members of one cell have no connection to any other cell. |
This is just like Al Queda and many other terror groups, so again, how are they not also terror groups? I don't expect you to address these questions, just as I don't expect you to ever comment on Rod Coronado, no matter how many times I ask you to.
| Quote: |
| It's worth noting, however, that the writers of the communiqu� don't seem to have followed through on their threat. It may have been just an empty threat. |
Does this make it okay? Why?
| Quote: |
| Regarding the subject of the Rall article, that action involved arson in which only inanimate property was targeted. |
The target was to stop the construction of homes in a forested area. Let's be clear. There are other ways to do this. They chose the wrong one. Why do you defend it? If they say the legal remedies failed, I will say, "You didn't try hard enough, and you didn't do the work to convince people about what the right thing is."
| Quote: |
| If it was committed by activists, and if their goal was to protect animals� natural habitat (as it appears), one can only hope they did everything they could to prevent anyone (human or nonhuman) from being injured in any way. |
"One can only hope." No, we can do more than hope. We can put the criminals in jail if we catch them, and those of us who work to protect the environment can disown those among us who do harm to the cause in this way.
| Quote: |
| In the case you brought up, it was a threat to use violence where violence had not been used before. |
Again, I ask: is that okay? Why is it okay?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I am deeply committed to nonviolent forms of political and social change. |
Your philosophy of �nonviolence� clearly extends only to your own species, and even then not to all humans in all situations. You said once that �war is sometimes necessary,� didn�t you? Warfare in all cases, without exception, is far more violent than anything animal/Earth liberation activists have ever done or even threatened. |
You'd have to provide a context in which I might have said that, but it's irrelevant unless you want to argue that a state of war exists and ELF is an army. Is that really what you believe?
| Quote: |
| Nothing personal. I just think it�s important to be clear where a person is coming from, and based on your posting history it�s clear that the ALF/ELF�s goals scare you far more than their tactics. At any rate, you definitely don�t share the ALF/ELF philosophy, concerning either goals or tactics. |
"Nothing personal," after which you go on to speak directly about me rather than the issue, put words and positions in my mouth and ascribe emotions to me which you'd have no way of knowing about, yet feel confident to assert as fact. "Definitely," huh?
Not gonna go there, Bramble. I even speak to you sincerely about traits I see in you that I find admirable, but you won't let go of your anger ... not saying I've never used it myself, but the ad hominem attack is the surest sign of a weak position, or a person who doesn't feel confident to speak clearly and argue it persuasively. Or else, a person who is just too full of the darkest emotions to be in full command of themselves or to see the world around them clearly, for that matter.
Please, talk to us about Rod Coronado, and why you might think he is wrong to try to persuade his former comrades to turn their swords into plowshares. He knows more about this than either if us because he's been through the fire and come out the other side. What is your opinion about him?
Last edited by The Bobster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
Yes, "saboteurs" is accurate in many cases.
Also, about liberations (in response to something The Bobster said earlier), they do seem to be fairly rare nowadays. That's because the activists have to have good homes lined up for the animals in advance ... it takes an incredible amount of organization and planning, and as everyone here knows, it's hard enough to find homes for animals who've been rescued legally. |
I agree it's much easier to set fire to something. Um, so they resort to violence because they are too lazy to do any better?
| Quote: |
| Sabotage is another tactic that many ELF/ALF activists use to show their opposition to the exploitation of animals and the destruction of their habitat, and to deter people from doing business in those fields. But it would be wrong to confuse sabotage with violence. |
However, it would NOT be wrong to confuse arson with violence, because arson IS violence.
You can sabotage a housing project just as well with litigation, picketing, and public information campaigns. But, well, that's hard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Imbroglio
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: Behind the wheel of a large automobile
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster wins again.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Imbroglio wrote: |
| Bobster wins again. |
Looking for something?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Um, so they resort to violence because they are too lazy to do any better? |
Um, no. They don't resort to violence at all. They carry out economic sabotage to send a message that the industry is immoral and shouldn't exist. Presumably if it was possible, they'd also liberate every animal in the world who is awaiting slaughter. The fact that they don't reflects very real physical and financial limitations, not "laziness."
Last edited by Bramble on Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Um, so they resort to violence because they are too lazy to do any better? |
Um, no. They don't resort to violence at all. |
Arson is violence. You know? Setting fire to building. Arson. It's a violent act.
Ask Rod Coronado about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
Yes, yes, there are many ways in which intimidation occurs, but we are talking about intimidation with a goal of producing political change. I'll be interested to hear your alternate reference book when you get around to providing one. Part of me can't help but suspect that you simply find it inconvenient that the tactics, goals and actions of a group you sympathize with also meets that definition. |
You seriously doubt the existence of multiple definitions of the word? Are you fucking kidding us? You provided a definition that could encompass a broad range of actions, many of which no one could reasonably construe as �terrorism.� And you�re seriously contending that Random House settles all the disputes among authorities in the field over who counts as a terrorist?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/un/2002/0203definition.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4716957.stm
http://www.voanews.com/Korean/archive/2005-01/a-2005-01-06-17-1.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
What is it that keeps coming up in these debates? The deliberate targeting of non-combatants for serious, real violence. People have come to think of a terrorist as someone who takes hostages or kills randomly selected victims in order to coerce a government to do something.
Your bizarre comment undoubtedly reveals more about the workings of your own mind than that of the general public:
| Quote: |
| I think it's a bigot's mistake to assume, because of 9/11, that all terrorists are men with swarthy skin and hairy faces � |
What planet are you living on that you consistently manage to come up with such delusional asshattery?
Last edited by Bramble on Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:49 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If the next time a "direct action" occurs results in the maiming or death of a child, or any human being � |
When was the last time? I forgot�there wasn�t a last time. You�re making it up. What a vivid imagination you must have.
| Quote: |
| And when that day happens, if it hasn't already - ALF/ELF actions are self-reporting, so if someone does get hurt, they'd have to be caught as well - how will you then distuinguish between these groups and suicide bombers in the middle east or white supremicists who blow up federal office building in the US? And how will you justify your support? |
What? Does this make any sense to anyone?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Each ELF and ALF cell is independent; the members of one cell have no connection to any other cell. |
This is just like Al Queda and many other terror groups, so again, how are they not also terror groups? |
Bin Laden and The Bobster are both bearded men, so how are they not both responsible for 9/11? Dave�s ESL Caf�, where logic comes to die �
| Quote: |
| I don't expect you to address these questions, just as I don't expect you to ever comment on Rod Coronado, no matter how many times I ask you to. |
I don�t remember you asking, actually. What is it you want me to say about him? I�ve never met him, and I really haven�t followed his career in any detail. I read an article or two about him years ago, and I admired him in many ways although the tactics he advocated made me kind of uncomfortable. A year or so ago, an article came out that said he was no longer vegan and he�d renounced direct action. He appeared to be doing what he felt he had to do to stay out of jail and protect his family, and I can�t blame him for that. I was very disappointed to hear he was (apparently) eating animal products, though, and I really hope that part of the article wasn�t true.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| It's worth noting, however, that the writers of the communiqu� don't seem to have followed through on their threat. It may have been just an empty threat. |
Does this make it okay? Why? |
It just makes it kind of silly to hear you bleating on and on about it, when it�s all you�ve got to support your "violent ELF" argument. There�s plenty of real violence in the world, and you�re up in arms about a threat that most likely won�t materialize any time soon, if it ever does. A waste of energy, perhaps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Re: war.
I distinctly recall you saying that �war is sometimes necessary� in one of your past attacks on me, in a really idiotic thread that covered zoos, the ALF, the military and I forget what else. Are you denying you hold that position? If you�re not an absolute pacifist, and you�re criticizing the ALF and ELF from the perspective of someone who might support warfare under the right circumstances�even if you do oppose all the wars going on right now�I don�t think this is a non-violence issue. It�s a question of how important animals and their habitats are.
If you are against the use of military force under all circumstances, great. Then let�s discuss self-defence�assuming you do believe in self-defence, where should the line be drawn between self-defence and the inappropriate use of force? The ELF and ALF see themselves as defending the innocent. I think most people would protect their families from being slaughtered. Is that wrong too? If not, why is it different?
And your posting history is relevant here. You speak as if you�re the ELF�s �boss� and you want to �fire� them. But they don�t take orders from you, you have no authority over them, and they absolutely don�t share the same ideology you�ve expressed on these forums over the years. Denying that is absurd.
P.S. � Your compliments would be really touching if they didn�t always come across as veiled insults. Sometimes I wonder if you�re dead serious in expecting gratitude for your patronizing remarks. Can anyone really be that clueless? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| Are you fucking kidding us? ... Your bizarre comment ... What planet are you living on ... such delusional asshattery ... You�re making it up. What a vivid imagination you must have ... Does this make any sense ? ... kind of silly to hear you bleating on and on .. one of your past attacks on me ... absurd ... veiled insults ... patronizing remarks ... clueless |
Wow, you sure told me off. That'll teach me, I guess.
Okay, you win. I'm gone. I've tried to have a civil conversation with you. You don't want it. I've got better things to do than be verbally abused when I've tried my best and a little more to be nothing of the sort toward you.
Much as I am not inclined to let you "win" by intimidating me into silence - much like ALF/ELF seek to intimidate citizens with their actions - I'm also not inclined to spend my time as a target for your tirades and foul language. If you want to feel satisfied that you have cowed me and forced me to retreat, you certainly may.
I haven't attacked you here, not even a little, nor have I ever threatened you in any way. There is so much violence, ill will and bitterness in your words and in your tone that I doubt it surprises anyone for you to defend criminal behavior like arson, vandalism, bombing and the like. Are you aware that you frighten people? Is it your intention to do so?
I really do get the feeling you'd like me to respond in kind, insult you back, perhaps say things about your personal life or your appearance. I'm not in the mood, and the truth is, I don't hate you and I don't care if you hate me. Perhaps that disappoints you, I don't know.
There's another thread I've been meaning to read for a few days. Think I'll check that out.
Last edited by The Bobster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| ...There is so much violence, ill will and bitterness in your words and in your tone that I doubt it surprises anyone for you to defend criminal behavior like arson, vandalism, bombing and the like... |
perhaps even participated in a little "direct action" himself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
I've tried to have a civil conversation with you. |
Nice try.
That's a joke, after some of the vulgarity you've come out with over the years.
| Quote: |
| I really do get the feeling you'd like me to respond in kind, insult you back, perhaps say things about your personal life or your appearance. I'm not in the mood ... |
That's big of you.
Good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
