Arson is never an appropriate solution. Never, ever, ever, and I say this as sister to someone whose house was burned to the ground by an arsonist claiming to be an environmentalist.
That said, I admit I giggled at the thought of the Street of Dreams going up in flames - I hate those d*mn projects!!! I actually thought about posting this myself.
In the end, all these houses going down in flames means that more work will be needed by inspectors, designers and contractors to rebuild the homes. There's always a bright side!
when i lived in albucrackee i worked at this bookstore called the living batch and the owner was a prof at unm. one of his best pals was edward abbey who wrote the monkeywrench gang. i wonder if abbey would be considered an inciter to terrorism? i don't really consider this terrorism, maybe ubervandalism, but not terrorism. otherwise you would burn down the mcmansions with the residents inside. where as i consider breaking into labs and freeing animals rather heroic.
I'm a firm supporter of both ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and ELF.
Interesting enough, the FBI considers ELF/ALF to be the largest domestic terrorist threat.
Pixel, is it possible to be a supporter of their goals but not of their methods? I'd be close to that position. But I can't support violent acts, with few exceptions, or short-sighted ones,
VR:
I'm sure they have my info from various other things I've done, so I'm not worried about that Vado. But hey, they probably needed something a bit more up-to-date!
LB:
Of course you can support the goals but not the actions, as its the thought that counts and is what they're getting at. ELF isn't an organized group but rather a banner that people are allowed to let their actions fall under, but I'm sure no one expects to change the world with what they're doing (ALF accomplishes much more along those lines). However, they're on CNN now and hopefully people are reading up on the issue to make their own opinion - mission accomplished.
and due to the nature of the group they don't have any policies, but typically ELF only vandalizes/damages property that are still in possession by the developer prior to purchase, as thats the person they'd be trying to 'harm'.
I don't see the connection, Pixel. Sea Shepherds give their real name, and operate in the open against acts that are against the spirit, if not the letter of international law. ALF/ELF act in secret against something that, although repugnant, is still legal.
They could have got as much attention and achieved as much with a few naked activists with signs on the corner at the grand opening. Or in a more radical fashion, actually showed up at the public hearings where the development was being considered and approved.
Unfortunately, these people aren't willing to put in the real work to create change and just go for "quickies". They accomplished nothing that couldn't have been accomplished in a non-violent and open way.
That being said, they aren't terrorists so much as violent criminals...
Does this mean that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism as well?
Isn't it true that in both cases, a vocal minority caused a large amount of financial damage to companies who felt they were benefiting from unjust laws?
to me both (ELF and Sea Sheperd) are 'eco-activists' that just go about things in different ways. I thought it was interesting that both had stories on CNN today, thats all.
Read Philip Roth's "American Pastoral." It's a great indictment of the ways in which radical ideologies can lead otherwise intelligent people to do stupid, terrifying things.
These ELF people are misguided. Their worldview is warped by anarcho-primitivist ideology. I am 100% an environmentalist, but wanton property destruction and endangerment of life is never justified.
Incidentally, these mansions will probably be rebuilt. So ELF just succeeded in DOUBLING (if not tripling through fire smoke) the environmental impact of this development.
I don't think ELF should be honored with getting the "eco-activist" label. As I alluded to with the Sea Shepherds, they are visible and accountable for their actions.
I will count ELF along side them when they start showing up before these places are constructed and lay down in front of the bulldozers, and show that they believe in the cause enough to be accountable for their actions. The fact that they hide behind anonymity and come to the party so late in the game, makes them ineligible in my mind to rise above simple criminality. Their are plenty of more effective ways to really stop abuse of the environment.
j
I think Archinect was behind this. If EIFS covered wallmarts burn down in suspicious fires next I have a feeling we'll all be on terrorist watch lists.
Joking aside, I'm not down with burning someone's house down because you disagree with their lifestyle. Even if it is a really, really disgusting lifestyle.
I am certain that these so-called terrorists showed up at plenty of community meetings regarding this development. Unfortunately, dissenting citizens usually can't stop giant developers through the forums that are provided to them. These public forums usually only occur after the plans have been made and the paperwork has been signed, so there is often very little that can be done, especially when large amounts of money are at stake for both the developers and local governments. And typical protest actions like laying in front of bulldozers can only last until the protesters are dragged off by the police.
The shit has already hit the fan in terms of the environmental crisis, and nothing seems to change through the legal pathways. While I don't necessarily condone these actions and would not take part in them myself, the intent was not to harm people, but only corporate property, and thus the label of "terrorist" may be unwarranted in this case.
(PS the hippie movement is dead, stop talking about it)
The only ones hurt by this are the law abiding environmentalists and activists.
The insurer will pay for the damage, the developer now makes his money without risk, his costs will be recompensed without the risk of having to sell the houses in a down market. The city still gets its fees. The houses get rebuilt.
The insurance company will make its money back by raising the fees for everyone else.
The losers are those of us campaigning within the laws and making real progress on improving the environment.
It is extremely naive to think that any good will come of their childishness.
j
Terrorism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
I believe what the ELF people are doing fits all three definitions.
Incidentally, LauraK, I bet that the actual ELF people weren't at any of the community meetings regarding this development.
It's like when they destroyed the UW horticulture building because they claimed that transgenic plants were being developed there. None were.
ELF acts on misguided principles and misinterpreted information. They do irreparable harm to people who are actually trying to make a difference on the environment (both by alienating would-be supporters, and by setting back environmental policy.)
That really depends on your definition of violence.
Even many diehard anarchists such as Bakunin would argue that destruction of capital is in fact violence -- but they would support the use of violence those cases.
Violence against property often has the unintended consequence of creating (or leading to) violence against people.
It's a convenient lie of the Black Bloc set that property destruction isn't violence. This kind of self-delusion enables them to destroy things remorselessly.
well, one view is that if destruction of capital is considered violence, then capital gains a somewhat legal equivalence to a living creature, which is the silliest thing ever. that was the basis of a partial criticism of the police activity during the WTO protests in Seattle: in some instances they were more concerned with protecting corporate capital than people.
Good point, Pixelwhore. I agree that there are certain cases where perhaps property destruction is justified. And property should never be considered equivalent to (or more valuable than!) But it's too easy for some activists to justify wanton property destruction by claiming that it harms no one.
none of the homes destroyed by ELF in the case we're talking about were occupied or being lived in, and I'm pretty sure that has been the case with all ELF activities.
and I'm not arguing that there are no side effects to the destruction of capital, you can't argue that. but if legally capital is treated in a similar manner to a living creature (or if a living creature is treated as capital, but thats another conversation) I think we need to step back and realize something is out of alignment.
But ELF isn't trying to influence the capital, they aren't simply burning the house to punish the house for being non-eco friendly. They are trying to influence the people behind the capital. The violence is being done to the developer via his capital. The intent of the destruction is at best intimidation.
The worst part is that these "activist" then leave it to others to justify their actions. If they think this behavior is justified, then they should stand up for it. The anonymity of their actions undercuts any legitimacy of their argument in my opinion.
j
mcmansions are mctorched...
While we all like to do our fair share of McMansion bashing, this is not the most productive way to express it:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/03/seattle.fire/index.html
ELF are horrible
Arson is never an appropriate solution. Never, ever, ever, and I say this as sister to someone whose house was burned to the ground by an arsonist claiming to be an environmentalist.
That said, I admit I giggled at the thought of the Street of Dreams going up in flames - I hate those d*mn projects!!! I actually thought about posting this myself.
Street of Dreams Come True!!
Kidding, of course. Arson is never good. Ever.
elf looks like fun
what does their sign say 'McMansions + RCD r not GREEN'
what's RCD?
I think RCD stands for "Residential Cluster Development"
i likened this to a little kid using cuss words, it's not right, but you can't help but laugh...
In the end, all these houses going down in flames means that more work will be needed by inspectors, designers and contractors to rebuild the homes. There's always a bright side!
(only 3/4 joking)
if it was accidental it would be funny
but terrorism? i definitely can help not laughing
can I get fries with that?
anybody want to calculate the carbon emissions from torching a mcmansion?
All that vinyl siding and vinyl windows burning can't be good...
OH Great,
NWhat next ? are we are going to have the Homeland Security Dept. saying the "hippie terrorist level" is at code orange, or something?
when i lived in albucrackee i worked at this bookstore called the living batch and the owner was a prof at unm. one of his best pals was edward abbey who wrote the monkeywrench gang. i wonder if abbey would be considered an inciter to terrorism? i don't really consider this terrorism, maybe ubervandalism, but not terrorism. otherwise you would burn down the mcmansions with the residents inside. where as i consider breaking into labs and freeing animals rather heroic.
$5 says Ralph Nader is behind this
The highest hippie terrorist level would be "tie dye".
Eco-terrorist levels:
tie-dye
cherry-garcia
patchoolie
hemp
phish
soap
Here's comes the unpopular opinion:
I'm a firm supporter of both ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and ELF.
Interesting enough, the FBI considers ELF/ALF to be the largest domestic terrorist threat.
Pixel, is it possible to be a supporter of their goals but not of their methods? I'd be close to that position. But I can't support violent acts, with few exceptions, or short-sighted ones,
hilarious crowbert. pixel you know the fbi moniters archinect doncha? i sent them your pic just to be patriotic.
oh and by the way. if anyone ever happened to see that documentary about the weather underground i actually met three of those weathermen. wierd.
VR:
I'm sure they have my info from various other things I've done, so I'm not worried about that Vado. But hey, they probably needed something a bit more up-to-date!
LB:
Of course you can support the goals but not the actions, as its the thought that counts and is what they're getting at. ELF isn't an organized group but rather a banner that people are allowed to let their actions fall under, but I'm sure no one expects to change the world with what they're doing (ALF accomplishes much more along those lines). However, they're on CNN now and hopefully people are reading up on the issue to make their own opinion - mission accomplished.
and due to the nature of the group they don't have any policies, but typically ELF only vandalizes/damages property that are still in possession by the developer prior to purchase, as thats the person they'd be trying to 'harm'.
dont fuck with alf
I don't see the connection, Pixel. Sea Shepherds give their real name, and operate in the open against acts that are against the spirit, if not the letter of international law. ALF/ELF act in secret against something that, although repugnant, is still legal.
They could have got as much attention and achieved as much with a few naked activists with signs on the corner at the grand opening. Or in a more radical fashion, actually showed up at the public hearings where the development was being considered and approved.
Unfortunately, these people aren't willing to put in the real work to create change and just go for "quickies". They accomplished nothing that couldn't have been accomplished in a non-violent and open way.
That being said, they aren't terrorists so much as violent criminals...
j
Does this mean that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism as well?
Isn't it true that in both cases, a vocal minority caused a large amount of financial damage to companies who felt they were benefiting from unjust laws?
make that "they felt"
to me both (ELF and Sea Sheperd) are 'eco-activists' that just go about things in different ways. I thought it was interesting that both had stories on CNN today, thats all.
Read Philip Roth's "American Pastoral." It's a great indictment of the ways in which radical ideologies can lead otherwise intelligent people to do stupid, terrifying things.
These ELF people are misguided. Their worldview is warped by anarcho-primitivist ideology. I am 100% an environmentalist, but wanton property destruction and endangerment of life is never justified.
Incidentally, these mansions will probably be rebuilt. So ELF just succeeded in DOUBLING (if not tripling through fire smoke) the environmental impact of this development.
I don't think ELF should be honored with getting the "eco-activist" label. As I alluded to with the Sea Shepherds, they are visible and accountable for their actions.
I will count ELF along side them when they start showing up before these places are constructed and lay down in front of the bulldozers, and show that they believe in the cause enough to be accountable for their actions. The fact that they hide behind anonymity and come to the party so late in the game, makes them ineligible in my mind to rise above simple criminality. Their are plenty of more effective ways to really stop abuse of the environment.
j
So someone does what we've all been thinking.
I think Archinect was behind this. If EIFS covered wallmarts burn down in suspicious fires next I have a feeling we'll all be on terrorist watch lists.
Joking aside, I'm not down with burning someone's house down because you disagree with their lifestyle. Even if it is a really, really disgusting lifestyle.
hippies smell bad
I am certain that these so-called terrorists showed up at plenty of community meetings regarding this development. Unfortunately, dissenting citizens usually can't stop giant developers through the forums that are provided to them. These public forums usually only occur after the plans have been made and the paperwork has been signed, so there is often very little that can be done, especially when large amounts of money are at stake for both the developers and local governments. And typical protest actions like laying in front of bulldozers can only last until the protesters are dragged off by the police.
The shit has already hit the fan in terms of the environmental crisis, and nothing seems to change through the legal pathways. While I don't necessarily condone these actions and would not take part in them myself, the intent was not to harm people, but only corporate property, and thus the label of "terrorist" may be unwarranted in this case.
(PS the hippie movement is dead, stop talking about it)
if you are concerned about the "environment" and you want to McTorch something, consider McTorching one of these:
People whose idea of a civilized response is burning down a subdivision do not go to community meetings.
personally i think the elves should all have to eat one of these as punishment. that's worse than being shipped off to guantanamo.
The only ones hurt by this are the law abiding environmentalists and activists.
The insurer will pay for the damage, the developer now makes his money without risk, his costs will be recompensed without the risk of having to sell the houses in a down market. The city still gets its fees. The houses get rebuilt.
The insurance company will make its money back by raising the fees for everyone else.
The losers are those of us campaigning within the laws and making real progress on improving the environment.
It is extremely naive to think that any good will come of their childishness.
j
Terrorism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
I believe what the ELF people are doing fits all three definitions.
Incidentally, LauraK, I bet that the actual ELF people weren't at any of the community meetings regarding this development.
It's like when they destroyed the UW horticulture building because they claimed that transgenic plants were being developed there. None were.
ELF acts on misguided principles and misinterpreted information. They do irreparable harm to people who are actually trying to make a difference on the environment (both by alienating would-be supporters, and by setting back environmental policy.)
destruction of capital is not violence.
That really depends on your definition of violence.
Even many diehard anarchists such as Bakunin would argue that destruction of capital is in fact violence -- but they would support the use of violence those cases.
Violence against property often has the unintended consequence of creating (or leading to) violence against people.
It's a convenient lie of the Black Bloc set that property destruction isn't violence. This kind of self-delusion enables them to destroy things remorselessly.
well, one view is that if destruction of capital is considered violence, then capital gains a somewhat legal equivalence to a living creature, which is the silliest thing ever. that was the basis of a partial criticism of the police activity during the WTO protests in Seattle: in some instances they were more concerned with protecting corporate capital than people.
Destruction of capital, especially homes, is extreme violence. It has great physical and psychological damage.
Israel's "creative destruction"(thanks dutchmod) doesn't cause violence to the families of suicide bombers, as it only destroys capital...
j
Good point, Pixelwhore. I agree that there are certain cases where perhaps property destruction is justified. And property should never be considered equivalent to (or more valuable than!) But it's too easy for some activists to justify wanton property destruction by claiming that it harms no one.
none of the homes destroyed by ELF in the case we're talking about were occupied or being lived in, and I'm pretty sure that has been the case with all ELF activities.
and I'm not arguing that there are no side effects to the destruction of capital, you can't argue that. but if legally capital is treated in a similar manner to a living creature (or if a living creature is treated as capital, but thats another conversation) I think we need to step back and realize something is out of alignment.
.....(or more valuable than!) human life.....
^ that was for joshcookie, farwest1 posted while I was typing ^
But ELF isn't trying to influence the capital, they aren't simply burning the house to punish the house for being non-eco friendly. They are trying to influence the people behind the capital. The violence is being done to the developer via his capital. The intent of the destruction is at best intimidation.
The worst part is that these "activist" then leave it to others to justify their actions. If they think this behavior is justified, then they should stand up for it. The anonymity of their actions undercuts any legitimacy of their argument in my opinion.
j
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.