|
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 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Of course there is eco-terrorism. If you blow sh$t up cause of your political worldview, regardless of what it is, you are a terrorist.
Anyhow, a good start, in terms of a solution to our environmental problems, is to move away from income taxes and towards consumption taxes. People should be encouraged via zero-rate income taxes to earn and discouraged via obscene VATs away from destructive behaviour. We don't tax what we want (productivity) and we tax the hell out of what we don't want (inefficiency, the essence of pollution).
Of course, this isn't the whole solution, just a start.
And rapier, why do you always have to take the position of 'stupid'? Are you still angry about the whole Africa debate? I was with you then, but you are too far gone for me now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Of course there is eco-terrorism. If you blow sh$t up cause of your political worldview, regardless of what it is, you are a terrorist.
|
That would also make warfare a form of terrorism, wouldn't it? I'm anti-war, but I wouldn't be in favor of redefining war as terrorism because there's an important distinction between the two. Blurring that distinction in language would just create confusion.
Anyway, regardless of where you stand on the rightness or wrongness of breaking the law for a political cause, it's a huge overstatement to equate Luers' action with "terrorism." He didn't kill anyone. He didn't injure anyone. He didn't take hostages and threaten their lives if his demands weren't met. Calling him a terrorist suggests that he committed equally serious acts, and governments of many different countries are capitalizing on our justified fears of terrorism to hand out extremely unjust sentences.
I think igotthisguitar said it very well. I personally wouldn't set fire to an SUV, but this case has implications for anyone who chooses to express controversial ideas. Now it's ELF activists, but who's next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right, I will be more clear.
If a military bombs a military target, that is war. If a military bombs a civilian target (a la Clinton and the Sundanese drug factory) that is terrorism.
If you are a pan-idiotarian, and you blow sh%t up for your cause, and you are not affiliated with a military, you are a terrorist.
rapier, I asked you a question. Why do you always take the stupid position as your default position? Are you a pan-idiotarian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endofthewor1d
Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Location: the end of the wor1d.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| I think igotthisguitar said it very well. |
I'm not sure what he said that you're "referr"-ing to, but I'd be willing to bet it looked "some"-thing like this!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
When the military bombs a civilian target, IMO that would more accurately be described as a war crime than a terrorist act (unless the intention is to make a point about warmongering governments being no better than their supposed enemies). Anyway, most of the people being labelled "ecoterrorists" haven't blown anything up or endangered anyone -- they've committed what would otherwise be considered minor crimes, but they're subjected to excessive punishment because they threaten big business.
This is the statement I was referring to earlier, when I expressed my agreement:
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Eco-"terror"-ISM exists if it strengthens the authorities' hand & can be used to justify
more of a fascist police state agenda.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I see a match made in heaven: red dog and igotthisguitar. The two of you have a great deal in common. Why don't the two of you get together Friday night and discuss....well, how the government is out to get you. You could compare notes. It might be fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah whatever.
Here's another really good article about the Huntingdon case:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142203810052
| Quote: |
Kevin Kjonaas is an unlikely casualty of George W. Bush's war against terror.
No one, including the U.S. government attorneys who just finished prosecuting him for so-called animal enterprise terrorism, says that the 28-year-old Minnesota native killed anyone — or even hurt anyone.
He's never planted a bomb or sent anthrax through the mail.
The government doesn't claim Kjonaas damaged property — or knowingly provided material assistance to anyone who did.
"I've been an ass," Kjonaas acknowledged days before a Trenton jury found him guilty of inciting terrorism. "Some of the things I've done have been just rude, and I wouldn't do them again. But am I legally responsible (for the crimes the government accused him of)? No."
However, earlier this month, Kjonaas and five others ranging in age from 27 to 31 became the first people convicted under a 1992 U.S. law — significantly beefed up after 9/11 — that defines as terrorists those who damage firms involved in the animal business.
Along with another case in Oregon, this one involving radical environmentalists, the New Jersey trial marks a significant step forward in the Bush administration's decision to bring the war on terror home for use against those it views as its new domestic enemies.
"This is just the starting gun," says David Martosko, research director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization funded by the U.S. restaurant industry and a fierce opponent of animal rights.
He says the government should move against more mainstream organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the Humane Society of the United States, which he calls "the farm teams for the eco-terror problem."
Curiously, for a case with such serious implications, none of those convicted in Trenton is alleged to have carried out any of the substantive crimes laid out in the indictment — from property damage to intimidation.
Prosecutors didn't provide evidence they knew the perpetrators or had ever communicated directly with them. Rather, the six were convicted of running an Internet site that allowed others access to information that could be used in crimes.
They call themselves the SHAC Six, after the acronym of their animal rights group — Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.
They could be called the Internet Six.
...
|
|
|
| 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
