<p>When staring long hard time in the face the young arsonists turn on their buddies. Smart move. This group was very active in the Northwest and did considerable ill-conceived damage. Some patient undercover police work cracked this group.</p>
<p><a href=“404 Not Found | abc10.com”>404 Not Found | abc10.com;
<p>Bunch of scumbags.</p>
<p>It’s bizarre how we throw around the word “terrorism”. This is vandalism and destruction of property. Arson gets committed all the time without the threat of sixty year sentences dangled over the arsonists’ heads.</p>
<p>Terrorism is flying planes into buildings and killing thousands of people.</p>
<p>When churches get burned in the South, I think it’s generally considered an act of terrorism.</p>
<p>Absolutely.</p>
<p>Since it’s done not to protest the existence of the churches, but of the entire race of people who worship in them.</p>
<p>I am glad that the punishment is harsh - and for what it’s worth - we have been using the term “eco terrorism” for at least 10 years now. I used the term in an article I wrote in 1997 and I know I had to have seen it in many documents before that.</p>
<p>I understand that; I’m questioning its validity.</p>
<p>Of course Garland, but it’s still just an act of vandalism or property destruction, unless some unfortunate happens to be in the building at the time. But leave that aside. When these ELF cretins burn beachfront property, or ski lodges high on Vail Mountain, as they have done, they are committing acts of terrorism on those of us who love such places. Yes, I know, Bin Laden is a minuteman. Sigh.</p>
<p>This is terrorism. Eco terrorists are bent on destroying human life everywhere. They don’t discriminate by race, religion, gender or creed.</p>
<p>
They set or attempted to set multiple fires, any of which could have killed someone. It’s fortunate that no one was hurt or killed but it doesn’t alter the seriousness of these offenses. Garland, would you be as generous (like this defense attorney) if the 20-24 year old defendants had randomly fired guns rather than set fires?</p>
<p>“Eco terrorists are bent on destroying human life everywhere”</p>
<p>Egads, I had no idea. I’m afraid to leave the house now.</p>
<p>I doubt it. Environmentalism is a religion which sparks happy thoughts in most people. Guns, on the other hand, are vile evil killing machines. (referring to #11)</p>
<p>I think they should get the same sentences as anyone else committing the same act.</p>
<p>The use of the word terrorism is valid per the US gov’t. Their (department of defense) definition of terrorism states -“the unlawful use of – or threatened use of – force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”</p>
<p>
I agree. They should be treated like Klansmen.</p>
<p>Nah, they always got off.</p>
<p>eco terrorists…hmmm…are they people that destroy the ecology? Like pollutures, and the like?</p>
<p>Just wondering</p>
<p>Here are five different US gov definitions:</p>
<p>.S. Code of Federal Regulations: “…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).</p>
<p>Current U.S. national security strategy: “premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents.”</p>
<p>United States Department of Defense: the “calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”</p>
<p>USA PATRIOT Act: “…acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” (SEC. 802.)</p>
<p>The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: “premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target.” [5]</p>
<p>And one from the UN:</p>
<p>"In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”</p>
<p>Only one includes property.</p>
<p>I myself see a big distinction between people and property, but that’s just me.</p>
<p>Ah I was counting down how many minutes would pass by without the intelligent insight of citygirlsmom.</p>