I am currently working on a research article on U.S. and global “ecological terrorism” (there’s debate on the nomenclature here), another way of describing environmental radicalism –a fascinating concept! Since the creation of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in 1976, numerous like-minded organizations have been founded, such as, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Earth First!, and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).
Protest march by EarthFirst! and other environmental groups
These “eco-terrorist” groups advocate the preservation of life, and use scare tactics (like arson, for example) against those who implement any form of animal or environmental abuse. Further, estimated property damages caused by these organizations (otherwise known as “eco-tage”) exceed $100 million. In a way, they destroy (or threaten to destroy) with the end goal of ending destructive measures. What do you think about this? Is destruction that aims to correct a larger evil justified?
Unlike many terrorist groups, eco-terrorists have traditionally steered clear from tactics geared towards human casualties.
However, extreme versions of these organizations that have formed in more recent years think differently. These “splinter groups” aim their attacks against individuals spanning from those who implement activities like animal drug-testing in their day-to-day operations, to those in mid- and senior management positions of corporations that collaborate with companies that partake in such activity. These groups, such as, the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and Arissa have been responsible for militant acts, including car-bombings and the planting of small incendiary devices in corporate branch locations.
Today, the possibility of eco-terrorists targeting nuclear or chemical facilities has become one of the government’s biggest fears. The likelihood of any of these groups getting access to a biological weapon is another dreaded possibility. According to the FBI, the implications of these events would not only lead to overwhelming consequences for the general population, but it would also cause an enormous threat to our country’s national security.
Jeff says
February 16, 2011 at 8:01 pmI have dealt with a few of the followers or hangers on of a few of these groups… I understand the need for action and the need for curbing our wastefull useage of fossil fuels and natural resources … While some are levelheaded folks with a plan and action, most follow along blindly without any comprehension of what they are following… Case in point, I used to do some volunteer work for BLM and state lands.. Some of the places that we would go was quite remote
.. If I drove my 8,000 lb, 8 ft wide track, 1 ton dually 4×4 Diesel to the site it would take 1 hour to go 10 miles and it was no problem, nothing ever mentioned … BUT if I drove my Street legal, insured, 300 lb, 6″ track, XR600R Honda dirtbike that would take 15 – 20 minutes along the SAME road, all hell would break loose on how I was the enemy.. I guess they never took into account the enviromental impact of the differences between the two machines … Just following along and spewing the company line, not knowing that the Bike was a heck of a lot more enviromentally friendly… Just my experience …
Ellen Wetzel says
February 17, 2011 at 3:07 amViolence is violence and cannot ultimately result in healing and peaceful resolution. While I understand and empathize with the anger, by engaging in terrorist tactics, we become no different from those considered to be “the enemy.” I don’t have the answer, but I believe that divisive, us/them thinking and terrorist action is not the way no matter what the rationale.
Facebook users says
February 17, 2011 at 3:26 pmAnnabel: Though it is not my way, I understand the urge to use these tactics in the face of the ecocide that is occurring as I write this, with the full complicity of the American government and all the other governments of the world. The global corporatocracy sees the Earth as a mere source of extractable wealth and the other 98% of us as slaves or expendables. This is a war, and in the end we will have to fight it or die.
Eric: I tend to feel if we stoop the tactics of destruction, those with more physical power and wealth can out do us. I recall the a question of killing Hitler, would it be justified, would it be wrong to kill him or would the greater wrong be to let him live, is it wrong to destory or is it wrong to not destroy or is there a another way. Our choices shouldn’t just be fight or flight.
Bonnie: Fight or die? Is this the only option? What about peaceful transformation? For myself and my local group of ‘crazies’ we simply bow out of the corporatocracy as you aptly describe the powers within the global economy… we try to avoid c…onsumerism… grow as much of our own food as is possible… support local … support one another… advocate for change… expand our base… encourage others to take that first step. Violence is not an option. Empowerment does not have to come through violence. WHile I understand that frustration levels are high – we must work to create the world we ant to live in – and reduction in violence is a huge part of the world I wish to help create…(more on Facebook)
Marcia: In my mind, if you want to stop violence your means to that end need to be nonviolent. Otherwise the ends are tainted and bound for dissipation, much like the rebellions in many countries where the hero became the despot. Non-violence takes… longer so it is understandable when the daily toll of violence against animals or the environment adds up, people get impatient and seek to fight fire with fire. But we have to ask ourselves, what are the qualities of the world we wish to co-create in the place of the one we are protesting, and begin behaving like that now. Satyagraha, ahimsa: truthforce and nonviolence. “We must be the change we wish to see.” …(more on Facebook)
SEE MORE COMMENTS ON FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/williampowersbooks“
Michael says
May 6, 2011 at 11:22 pmconcerning “if you want to stop violence your means to that end need to be nonviolent,” do you consider ecotage “violent”? is general sabotage or property damage “violent”?