BC Pipeline Explosion/Bombing

[OldSolduer]

Could I ask you what the difference is between an "ECO Terrorist" blowing up a SUV and say a member of the FLQ or Taliban blowing up a SUV?

There is no difference. Both are out to gain notoriety. I don't think "Eco" terrorists would care either if a human being was killed in their escpades.

They are terrorists, plain and simple.

 

[S.Stewart]

There is no difference. Both are out to gain notoriety. I don't think "Eco" terrorists would care either if a human being was killed in their escpades.

They are terrorists, plain and simple.

The MO of eco-terrorists is generally a lot different, most incidents of eco-terrorism that have been conducted and people charged for are generally well calculated risks, and generally planned around not creating bodily harm, as an example when the SUV's were fire bombed, they we parked etc, these people do not just generally toss pipe bombs wherever. Is it terrorism, yes; but at the same time, it is not the type of terrorism, that is generally projected by the media.

You are right, sometimes death and injury does happen, in the logging industry, a favorite game of hippie types and eco-terrorists who do not believe in logging, will spike trees when they are young. This is done usually with 2-5 railroad spikes driven into the tree, as the trees grow the new growth eventually  covers the spike, and it become embedded in the middle of the tree.

So when the tree is being marked to be harvested and felled. and is taken to be milled, and fed through the cutting system, those spikes embedded in that tree obviously damage the system, of course the off shoot of that is throwing a couple railroad spikes, into a massive table saw, is not smart.

The difference is most eco-terrorists are hell bound on destroying property, death happens but its not the goal and it is usually a chain reaction, ie worker at the mill, vs your average suicide bomber, where death is the outcome.

The site I currently have been working on as a geological tech, we have had problems with people entering the site at night, and damaging equipment, dumping stuff into gas tanks (sugar) of work trucks, cutting wires, spray painting. All are which are the general types of stuff these BS "activists" are typical of. 

 

[Greymatters]

The site I currently have been working on as a geological tech, we have had problems with people entering the site at night, and damaging equipment, dumping stuff into gas tanks (sugar) of work trucks, cutting wires, spray painting. All are which are the general types of stuff these BS "activists" are typical of.  

What security measures has your org taken to mitigate this?

 

[S.Stewart]

What security measures has your org taken to mitigate this?

The company has taken various steps, increased security via person and cameras with and around main entry points, and buildings. The reality is that it's hard to stop, as the site is large, and there are various entry points throughout the site that can be created.

It hard with sites like the one I currently work on, because it is open, its not like we can just get security cameras placed wherever we want them, and were we send untrained persons on the site is limited, ie we can not expect hired security to enter various areas of the site, because it is unsafe for them to do so, and its the company who owns the site's ass if something happens.

Various things are being done on the site, deconstruction and recycling of the materials from that, plus we have drills operating on the site of the purpose of bore holes to do Hydrogeology work, as well as general soil profiles etc. 

Because of the nature of what the site was used for, before the company bought it with the intention of rehabing it, there are all kinds of issues on the site, to prevent normal security measures one would normally take on say your average construction sites where condo's are being built.

If you would like me to further explain what I mean in that regard, feel free to PM.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The difference is most eco-terrorists are hell bound on destroying property, death happens but its not the goal and it is usually a chain reaction, ie worker at the mill, vs your average suicide bomber, where death is the outcome....

Bullshit, death is a very real possibility if there in any sort of tampering in an industrial process and you cannot igore that possibility.  It is known that if you set a spike in a tree that is going into lumber mill could result in the death of a mill worker.  If you walk into a lumber mill with a suicide vest it could also result in the death of a mill worker.  Same result.  You would have to be a very ivory tower terrorist if you think that industrial sabotage is free of risks to human beings.

Because of the nature of what the site was used for, before the company bought it with the intention of rehabing it, there are all kinds of issues on the site, to prevent normal security measures one would normally take on say your average construction sites where condo's are being built.

/cynic hat on
So the security measures would be too expensive is what you are saying?
/cynic hat off

 

[George Wallace]

The difference is most eco-terrorists are hell bound on destroying property, death happens but its not the goal and it is usually a chain reaction, ie worker at the mill, vs your average suicide bomber, where death is the outcome.

NO.

These IRRESPONSIBLE " ECO terrorists" are only fooling themselves if they conduct these types of activities and do not accept the fact that they knowingly could be contributing to the death of a person or other living creature, and damaging the environment.  They are the equivalent to the Drunk who gets into an automobile and drives down a busy thoroughfare.  They are just as responsible for the end results of their activities, as the drunk, or any other member of our society.  They can not claim "innocence" in any way.  They are committing acts that could possibly take lives.  Even the car bombings could take someone's life.  Do they actually take the time and effort to search and cordone off the SUVs that they fire bomb, ensuring the safety of the Public?  I highly doubt it.

Are they trying to "terrorize" persons working in those industries?  Yes, they are.  They then use terrorism as a tool, and that fits the description of what a Terrorist is.

 

[S.Stewart]

Bullshit, death is a very real possibility if there in any sort of tampering in an industrial process and you cannot igore that possibility.  It is known that if you set a spike in a tree that is going into lumber mill could result in the death of a mill worker.  If you walk into a lumber mill with a suicide vest it could also result in the death of a mill worker.  Same result.  You would have to be a very ivory tower terrorist if you thing that industrial sabotage is free of risks to human beings.


/cynic hat on
So the security measures would be too expensive is what you are saying?
/cynic hat off

Most logging mills are unmanned but there is a risk, but like i said that is not the intention where as suicide bombers for example intend to die, and take as many people with them as possible. Eco terrorists are just as the name states, I personally as someone who works in the industry would not toss someone who released a mink farm into the wild resulting in huge money loss, in the same catergory as  the suicide bomber in the sandbox, who decided it was a good idea to blow themselves up in the local market square.

As far as the site I work on,we have holes that are open for the purpose of soil pits, areas which are potentially contaminated ie when we enter that section of the site, where the earth has been opened, we take the appropriate precautions.

It's not because it's expensive, its because of the safety risks that we limit where hired security can go on the site. 

 

[George Wallace]

It isn't the Mills that are the problem, as much as it is the Logger with the chainsaw.  When a Logger has the fear of dismemberment and death everyday when he goes to work, that his chainsaw may hit a spike and cause the chain or saw to cause him injury, then you have a Terrorist Act.

 

[S.Stewart]

I agree it is terrorism, my point is it is not the type of terrorism that most of the general public thinks of when they hear the word, the media definition of terrorism these days, is very different from the classical definition of terrorism, which we so widely just discussed.

Most people outside the industry will never really hear of or encounter eco-terrorism, it happens everyday but it is not widely projected by media. Most eco terrorists however are charged with vandalism, and destruction of property vs anti terrorism laws, which is something I would like to see changed, but the legal definition differs, therefore they are not prosecuted to the same extent.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Most logging mills are unmanned but there is a risk, but like i said that is not the intention where as suicide bombers for example intend to die, and take as many people with them as possible. Eco terrorists are just as the name states, I personally as someone who works in the industry would not toss someone who released a mink farm into the wild resulting in huge money loss, in the same catergory as  the suicide bomber in the sandbox, who decided it was a good idea to blow themselves up in the local market square.

As far as the site I work on,we have holes that are open for the purpose of soil pits, areas which are potentially contaminated ie when we enter that section of the site, where the earth has been opened, we take the appropriate precautions.

It's not because it's expensive, its because of the safety risks that we limit where hired security can go on the site.

We are not talking about releasing minks into the wild.  We are talking about deliberate acts to seriously damage infrastructure or material and seriously injure or kill people.  If you spike 100 trees you have as much potential to kill people as if you walked into a room with 100 people wearing a suicide vest.

So why cant you install cameras?  There must be boundaries to the site you are working at.

 

[S.Stewart]

We are not talking about releasing minks into the wild.  We are talking about deliberate acts to seriously damage infrastructure or material and seriously injure or kill people.  If you spike 100 trees you have as much potential to kill people as if you walked into a room with 100 people wearing a suicide vest.


So why cant you install cameras?  There must be boundaries to the site you are working at.

Ah but that mink farm is an act of eco terrorism, it falls under the legal definition.

There are boundaries, man made, and natural, but camera which we have in these areas, but when the fence line is in the trees, which are heavily wooded for example at the far back end of the site, a camera is not going to do us much good. Even with cameras up, we still have problems. Where there is a will there is a way, and having the site in the same area as the Environmental College doesn't help.

Like i said, it's something that happens all the time in the industry, so far the problems we have on the site have decreased due to measures taken, but it has not eliminated the problem, Just like tree spiking there are only so many measures you can take. With us the eco terrorism we are facing is the typical type, doesn't cause any harm, just costs time and money.

Regardless I am just the Geo Tech, and how my employer decides to approach the issue of the site and it's equpment doesn't affect me, regardless of delays and everything else, I still get paid.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Ah but that mink farm is an act of eco terrorism, it falls under the legal definition.

I would argue that releasing minks into the wild does not fall under the definition

an action that takes place either within or outside of Canada that is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.

Into the wild- minimizes the chance of serious harm to people.  Release them into a day care where the kids of mink farm workers kids are, then yes, terrorism definition applies.
Disrupt and essential service- I would posit that mink farming is not an essential service.  Our lumber industry is a vital part of our economy.

just costs time and money.

Time is money, so you are saying it just costs money.

/cynic hat on
So the security measures would be too expensive is what you are saying?
/cynic hat off

 

[S.Stewart]

Eco-terrorism, has it's own definition. It is not classed under the general terrorism definition, it can be very much the same, but has it's own definition, because most eco-terrorist incidents are huge escalated acts of vandalism. Same thing but it differs.

"Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" which defined an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."

ELF's goal of "inflict[ing] maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment" has inspired people to set fire to SUVs at a New Mexico car dealership, Hummers in California, and a Vail ski lodge whose construction threatened the lynx, an endangered species. Damage to the Colorado ski project amounted to $12 million.

ELF members are vandals. They're arsonists. But they aren't terrorists, not by the classic definition you gave me.

Logging while we class it as an essential service really isn't, as places like France seem to do just fine, and wood there and logging is rare, it is essential because we as Canadians deem it as such, essential service would be more along the lines of hydro, drinking water, waste treatment, etc.

 

[AmmoTech90]

What Canadian legal definition can you provide?

The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is not Canadian legislation, and from what I can find it is not even passed in the US.

If there is no Canadian definition then there is no difference between political, social, environmental, or any other sub-catagory.  Terrorism is terrorism.

It doesn't matter if someone wants to save a long rat with nice fur or throw of the yokes of oppression on their tribe, if you are willing to use seriously violent means to do so then it is terrorism.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I would argue that releasing minks into the wild does not fall under the definition
Into the wild- minimizes the chance of serious harm to people.  Release them into a day care where the kids of mink farm workers kids are, then yes, terrorism definition applies.
Disrupt and essential service- I would posit that mink farming is not an essential service.  Our lumber industry is a vital part of our economy.

Time is money, so you are saying it just costs money.

Minks are voracious predators.  If you released several hundred into the wild in a relatively small area, the damage to the ecosystem would immediately be devastating.  So much for environmental preservation.  Instead of cameras, try several large well trained (or poorly trained, even), rottweilers.

 

[NL_engineer]

ELF members are vandals. They're arsonists. But they aren't terrorists, not by the classic definition you gave me.

Well they fit in below, so they are terrorists, and IMO should be treated as such; Including being held for an indefinite period of time.


I boldded a part to fit there cause

PART II.1
TERRORISM
..........................

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

link like anyone can't guess were this is from

 

[S.Stewart]

What Canadian legal definition can you provide?

The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is not Canadian legislation, and from what I can find it is not even passed in the US.

If there is no Canadian definition then there is no difference between political, social, environmental, or any other sub-catagory.  Terrorism is terrorism.

It doesn't matter if someone wants to save a long rat with nice fur or throw of the yokes of oppression on their tribe, if you are willing to use seriously violent means to do so then it is terrorism.

Eco-terrorists are rarely if ever charged with terrorism I personally have never heard of one, but there very well could be.  They are charged under environmental law, and vandalism if anything, those that spike trees and are caught fall underneath prosecution under environmental law, backed up by various forestry laws, those that damage and bomb suv's are charged with destruction of property, and arson. Eco terrorists are not terrorists by definition, as they do not call for death and destruction, most radical enviromental groups are economically motivated.

Eco-terrorism is one of those terms that can both ways, it is not a legal term, rather a term coined by people who work in the industry, it has also been used to describe those that are guilty of break environmental law such as clear cutting, strip mining etc.

 

[tomahawk6]

ELT is the #1 domestic terrorist group in the US according to the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march08/seattlearson_030408.html

SEATTLE ECO-TERRORISM INVESTIGATION
03/04/08

Early Monday morning, three luxury show homes in a northeast Seattle suburb were destroyed by fire in an apparent arson and a possible act of domestic terrorism.

Two more houses were targeted, one of which was damaged. Each of the homes—models for a massive luxury development called the “Seattle Street of Dreams” northeast of the city—was vacant. No one was hurt in the blazes. 


Our Seattle Joint Terrorism Task Force—one of more than 100 around the country—responded to the scene and launched an investigation in concert with local county fire crews and investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

A large banner signed by the eco-terrorist group ELF, or Earth Liberation Front, was left at the scene on a nearby fence. The sign read: “Built Green? Nope Black! McMansions + RCDs r not green ELF.” “RCD” is apparently a reference to rural cluster developments.

The attack is the first linked to ELF in the Seattle area since January 2006, says Dave Gomez, the FBI Seattle Assistant Special Agent in Charge responsible for counterterrorism. Nationwide, radical environmentalists have threatened lives and caused more than $100 million in damages in recent years, targeting businesses, universities, researchers, and others it believes are harming the environment. Some victims have been attacked by mistake. ELF radicals typically work in autonomous cells, much like many international terrorist operatives.

If you have any information concerning the fires, please contact the Seattle Joint Terrorism Task Force at (206) 622-0460.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/dt/fug_dt.htm

 

[S.Stewart]

Minks are voracious predators.  If you released several hundred into the wild in a relatively small area, the damage to the ecosystem would immediately be devastating.  So much for environmental preservation.

Releasing things where the should not be, and invasive species, are a whole different problem in the industry all together.

As as side note the military as often been coined as Eco-terrorists by the industry because of the use of Agent Orange etc, even though the effects to the environment were know, as well as the varied affect it had on people.

 

[George Wallace]

Eco-terrorists are rarely if ever charged with terrorism I personally have never heard of one, but there very well could be.  They are charged under environmental law, and vandalism if anything, those that spike trees and are caught fall underneath prosecution under environmental law, backed up by various forestry laws, those that damage and bomb suv's are charged with destruction of property, and arson. Eco terrorists are not terrorists by definition, as they do not call for death and destruction, most radical enviromental groups are economically motivated.

Eco-terrorism is one of those terms that can both ways, it is not a legal term, rather a term coined by people who work in the industry, it has also been used to describe those that are guilty of break environmental law such as clear cutting, strip mining etc.

I think we are all arguing semantics here, and are all on the same side.

Let's face it.  The Government Prosecutors are going to charge these people, when caught, with Charges that will stick and to which there is clear evidence.  If they charged them with Acts of Terrorism, and loopholes are found in the existing laws, then these people will get off scott free.  The Prosecution probably feels that to find them guilty of breaking the Law, with out question, is better than them getting off on a technicality.