David Metsky said:
Nope, I don't use reputation points when I disagree with someone.
i appreciate that. it was unclear from my post, but my invitation to redboxers was a general one and not leveled at you personally.
a few referees red-carded me for my politicization of the topic. yet the topic is inherently political. as environmental conditions worsen (as they inevitably will), and if the US government continues to persue "do-nothing" (or worse oil-subsidy) environmental policies, we'll see more and more "reasonable" folks employing radical means to protect the natural environment that they love. as a country, and as a world, we should be feeling the urgency of our reckless practices, but we do not. the language of "rights," "property" and "law" are in this day and age all too often invoked in ways that are at odds with what is good for ALL people, especially future generations. arguments defending problematic practices often use these ideas to defend themselves; the logic is specious and familiar, but everyday it is more apparent that it is short-sighted and wrong. we enjoy our mountains now, but what will they be like in 20 years? 50 years? 100?
that part was not directed at you, mr. metsky, it was simply my take on why this is actually relevant. there seems to be a feeling on VFTT that anything political has no place on this site (some of my negatives were born of this logic). i say that's rubbish. what's more important, another presidential traverse topic or a sober and real discussion about environmental stewardship that may result in a bit of murky water when politics become involved? i find the prevailing attitude troubling.
i think the main reason we disagree dave, is that i am unconvinced that destruction of property (without the threat of destruction of life) is terrorism. even if these acts were inspired by an anti-logger (which is FAR from known), there was never any threat to a person. a home was not burned, COMMERCIAL vehicles were burned. the threat was not intended for a person, in fact the act went to great lengths to avoid endangering people. to my knowledge, "ecoterrorists" (a term i obviously find problematic) haven't done much killing of people despite the great amount of property damage they have amassed in their nascent history in the US. are the AMC sign defacers too terrorists? in contrast to our protagonists in this story, their actions are unquestionably political; the only difference in the two is then the scale of the damages.
the label terrorist is to my mind a severe overstatement in this case, especially viewed in light of the massive loss of life seen a few days ago. i stick to my original statement that the label is often carelessly and uncritically used (as it was in this context).
