A dozen empty houses in a new Maryland subdivision that is the focus of a long-running environmental dispute were destroyed and numerous others were damaged yesterday in what officials said were more than 20 coordinated, methodically planned arsons.
No one was hurt, but the attack left the Hunters Brooke subdivision, near Indian Head in Charles County, scarred with blackened, gutted houses and terrified residents in the quiet community near the Potomac River about 25 miles downstream from the District.
For the past five years, two subdivisions in the area, Hunters Brooke and the yet-to-be-built Falcon Ridge, have been a source of fierce opposition from environmental groups, which have sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers for allowing houses to be built in the area.
Environmentalists assert that the houses will damage Araby Bog, a 6.5-acre wetlands area that is home to endangered insects and such rare plants as the halberd-leaved greenbrier and red milkweed. The bog filters rain and upwelling waters that feed into the nearby Mattawoman Creek and the Potomac.
These eco-terrorists are ever bit as much trouble as the vile abortion clinic bombers and various other domestic fruitcakes that plague the nation. They should be dealt with harshly.
bg
Hold on bub – there’s a substantial difference: eco-terrorists don’t kill people (If i’m wrong about this, please correct me).
They’re trouble, yes. But really, they’re more of a nuisance than a threat.
Mark Tapscott
This could be the biggest mistake ELF has ever made because it puts them on the front page of both daily newspapers and all of the local tv news in a manner that graphically illustrates their terrorist character. Now ELF is not just one of those crazy California/West blips on the news radar screen. It is only a matter of time before ELF-inspired eco-terrorism kills innocent people. Now that it has come to DC, will the authorities in government and the Mainstream Media have the guts to call ELF a terrorist group and act accordingly? My guess is no, at least for now.
Kimmitt
ELF-inspired direct action (I’m I don’t agree that it’s the same as terrorism, simply because the intent is not to frighten) has yet to kill any innocents, but there have been some extremely close calls.
The main difference between ELF and the abortion clinic bomber types is that ELF explicitly seeks to avoid killing anyone. They (and let’s keep in mind that ELF is a loose network, not tightly-knot group) seek, in general, to raise awareness and to make certain projects financially unviable through large-scale vandalism. That’s not terrorism, precisely. It’s something else.
John Cole
It’s terrorism.
bg
Fine, fine, fine. Tomato, Tomahto.
None of us like them.
Dean
So, if ETA warns about the bombs, they’re not terrorists?
How about if they only kill soldiers and policemen? Are they terrorists then?
shark
Hold on bub – there’s a substantial difference: eco-terrorists don’t kill people (If i’m wrong about this, please correct me).
Yes, you’re wrong about this. These people deal in arson and explosives. You do the math
Kimmitt
Right, but they haven’t actually killed anyone yet, and they go to great effort to avoid killing anyone.
Terrorism is the commission of violence, generally killing, to frighten a polity into doing something. If what ELF does is terrorism, you’ve redefined the term so thoroughly that the guy who stole my bicycle a couple of months ago is a terrorist.
John Cole
Some guy broke your arm so you wouldn’t buy another bicycle? Weird?
Your analogy sucks.
Carpbasman
Actually, no. ELF hasn’t killed anyone. They eventually will. They’ll be charged with murder when they do because it will be in the commision of a felony. However, they are not out to kill people but to destroy property.
And they have been a focus of the FBI for a while. That is, I think, the earliset domestic terrorism report that specifically mentions ELF and they get front page billing, no less. And just two years after they’re first claimed act. (Yes, that site is biased)
As to whether or not it’s terrorism or not, they are trying to make developers scared of developing because of costs. And the FBI seems to think they’re terrorists. Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter. It”s illegal. It’s dangerous. And it’s counterproductive and damages the case of legitimate environmentalists (much like PETA undermines the case for humane treatment of animals, but worse). And euphemising what there doing by calling it “direct action” is plain wrong.
To be certain, there is a spectrum of lawbreaking for political ends. I don’t think anyone’s going say what Rosa Parks did was wrong. But there is a line that is crossed and ELF/ALF have crossed it.
But really, in terms of the threat posed for large scale harm, I’d worry about the threadbare fringes of the right. Though, they haven’t been heard from in a while (knock on wood).
Kimmitt
Some guy broke your arm so you wouldn’t buy another bicycle?
The article you posted said clearly, “No one was hurt.”
JohnO
Obviously Kimmit knows no one who’s a firefighter. Everytime a fireman goes to put out one of these blazes, there’s a risk of injury or death. By your reasoning, my pointing my .45 out the window and pulling the trigger is no big deal because the likelihood of my hitting anyone is remote at best. Wouldn’t make me an asset to society.
Kimmitt
“but there have been some extremely close calls.”
Straw men are a fire hazard. Best you not keep them around.
Huck
They haven’t killed anyone…yet Kimmit. Give it time. And honestly, do you think they won’t eventually target people? I mean, if your cause is the “environment”, what’s a few guilty human beings in the bigger scheme of things?
Also, it would be nice if liberals like you could at the very least condemn this behavior (all I saw in your posts was apologetics…unless I missed your condemnation.) I mean, I’m sure you don’t approve, but instead of trying to just defend them from charges of “terrorism” by conservatives and libertarians, can’t you at least say you don’t agree with their tactics?
Kimmitt
I’m pretty conflicted by ELF; on the one hand, I don’t condone their methods. On the other hand, they are effective. It is my opinion that the risk of eventual accidental death or serious injury is far too great for me to support them.
I suppose I would have felt the same way about John Brown. I dunno.
And honestly, do you think they won’t eventually target people?
Yes. I think they won’t eventually target people. Further, I believe in condemning people for actually doing or attempting to do things, not for things they might at some point do in the future.
dylan
Hey, I don’t like people blowing up property, mine or others. Consider this a condemnation of the highest order. Now to the heart of the discussion: the labeling of organizations as “terrorist” and the consequences that they shall face. Simply stating that they are terrorists or inserting the “some guy broke your arm so..” phrase to imply as such, shows a certain desire to cast that stone. I, like Kimmitt, will condemn them for only what they have done. It seems a realistic approach.
s
bg – you call these criminals “a nuisance”? Glad to see your moral compass is working so well.
syn
Eco-terrorists are killing the environment.
syn
Actually, I should have said:
Eco-terrorists are terrorizing the environment.
Anon
Well that’s pretty true syn… I mean for one thing, what do you think happens to all that smoke and ash? It goes straight into the precious wetlands, killing the spotted wood chipmunk and gray-eyed orchid or whatever the hell is in there. And of course, now the developers need to go chop down more trees and buy more PVC pipe, etc. etc. in order to rebuild the houses.
bg
well s, what are they if not a nuisance? I call them a nuisance because I don’t think they deserve more credit. When they cause more harm than they already have, I’ll bump them up a notch. But in any case, fuck you for calling my moral compass into question in such a low manner. You disagree with me? Tell me why and we can discuss it productively. Not all violence is on the same level.
rap
I do disagree with bg and kimmit on substance. Violence against an individual is not requisite to a “terrorist” act. If I told Kimmit he had to vote for Bush or I would burn his house down the next time he left, I believe the FBI could pursue this as the issuance of a terroristic threat, even though Kimmit was not threatened with bodily harm.
Further, the environmental movement has put individuals at grave risk of bodily harm on many occasions by the practice of “tree spiking”.
Bryan C
If ELF is really trying so hard to not hurt people then maybe they shouldn’t, you know, practice mass arson and destruction of propery. Those hobbies have been known to cause injury from time to time.
Since when is torching a whole neighborhood of homes, even empty ones, a “nuisance”? It tied up law enforcement, 100 firefighters and the resources of their fire companies to clean up after some idiot ecoterrorists’ idea of a fun night on the town. And what about the people who were planning to move into those homes? Or the economic hit for the company that built them? Maybe they’re all rich people who are fair game.
jeff
I’m trying to imagine the left’s reaction if someone said “but it was an EMPTY abortion clinic that Operation Rescue burned down”.
Hey, those black churches were empty. No harm, no foul.
I mean, are you people fucking insane? They’re burning down homes that somebody worked their ass off to buy, worked their ass off to build, and some fuckin losers go and burn it down.
JohnO is right. You obviously don’t know any firefighters. You sure as hell don’t have any in your family.
That’s a helluva code to live by. Nobody ended up dead so it’s okay.
Terry
“they are only a nuisance”
What a moronic view of what happened! Jeff’s post says about all that needs to be said on this subject.
tom
I mean, are you people fucking insane? They’re burning down homes that somebody worked their ass off to buy, worked their ass off to build, and some fuckin losers go and burn it down.
I’d consider deliberately blowing people up to be worse than burning a house down.
If there’s a fucked up moral compass, it’s yours.
Ken
“I’m pretty conflicted by ELF; on the one hand, I don’t condone their methods. On the other hand, they are effective. It is my opinion that the risk of eventual accidental death or serious injury is far too great for me to support them.
I suppose I would have felt the same way about John Brown. I dunno.”
What? Are you kidding me? You would feel the same way about a man who used violence to try and stop the practice of slavery and a group of people setting fires to stop the practice of building houses?
Their cause is repugnant and their methods are hazardous to innocent bystanders. Throw the book at ’em!
CadillaqJaq
I think I’m beginning to understand the”progressive” mindset now… wipe out ALL laws except murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Those are the only moral ones, the rest are a “nuisance.”
bg
You misunderstand. I agree its terrorism. They’re serial arsonists and they could well kill someone.When they’re caught they should be prosecuted and I think their penalty should and would be over 10 years in prison. I, however, do not feel threatened by it. That’s why its a nuisance – we have more important things to deal with.
Really- do YOU feel threatened by ELF or other eco-terrorists?
Floyd McWilliams
I’m pretty conflicted by ELF; on the one hand, I don’t condone their methods. On the other hand, they are effective.
After he wrote this comment, Kimmitt went to a rally and whined about homelessness.
Kimmitt
If I told Kimmit he had to vote for Bush or I would burn his house down the next time he left, I believe the FBI could pursue this as the issuance of a terroristic threat,
Right, but that wouldn’t be “terrorism,” it’d be terroristic threats, an entirely different thing.
More to the point, if you said, “Don’t build a ski resort on this pristine land, or we will commit acts of vandalism which make it more expensive than it is worth to even try,” then that would be extortion. Which is what ELF essentially engages in. But extortion is not terrorism, especially when it does not involve killing peopel.
s
bg,
Gee…you sound like John Kerry. First you call it a “nuisance”, then you said “I agree it’s terrorism”. Thus, youa re calling terrorism a “nuisance.
BG – a neighbour mowing his lawn early Sunday morning is a NUISANCE.
Self-righteous arsonists are far more than a “nusiance”. And it’s the lack of outrage on your part, and many others like you in society, that make it so easy for these people to get away with this kind of stuff. You get what you allow.
Tell you what. I’ll come over to your house, and burn it down, because I don’t agree with your politics or views. Then we’ll see if you still consider it a “nuisance”.
This arson is OUTRAGEOUS – and these people should be caught and put away for a long, long time.
Veeshir
I love reading Kimmitt. He rarely fails to crack me up. In his last post he said, Right, but that wouldn’t be “terrorism,” it’d be terroristic threats, an entirely different thing.
So, threatening to burn down a house is a “terroristic threat”. But wait, then he says, if you said, “Don’t build a ski resort on this pristine land, or we will commit acts of vandalism which make it more expensive than it is worth to even try,” then that would be extortion. now threats about burning down structures are extortion.
I understand that Kimmitt thinks that doing it ‘expressly’ for monetary harm makes it different, but how is that different from burning down his house? I mean, it will cost him a lot, even with insurance. How much are your wedding photos worth? That xmas ornamnent your kid made in kindergarten? Isn’t that the point of the threat? To make your opposition too expensive?
Consistencly and logical thinking don’t seem to be a priority to Kimmitt. Thanks for the morning laugh.
space
What is it with the Right and their inability to grasp the subtleties of language? They are like two-year olds who learn a word and can’t stop repeating it. “Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism.”
The ELF engages in arson. If they threaten that they will burn houses down if built, that may be extortion. There are other, similar crimes that they can be and should be charged with.
But this is not terrorism, people. Terrorism is engaging in violent acts, for the sake of engaging in violent acts. There is an INTENT to intimitade and threaten. The ELF have demonstrated no intent to do so.
Might they accidentally injure or kill someone by committing massive acts of arson? Sure. But that doesn’t make it terrorism any more than reckless driving, which also scares people and might lead to fatalities, is terrorism.
Comparing it to clinic bombers, who clearly intended to hurt or kill people is asinine.
s
For “space”:
Main Entry: ter
space
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
You prove my point. The intent of the ELF is not to intimidate a population or government. The point is to make construction of objectionable projects economically problematic by destroying them.
The choice of arson as a tool is irrelevant. If the ELF could magically deconstruct 20 homes overnight, without detection, and without any possibility of harming anyone, no doubt they would choose that option.
Arson is not terrorism. Period.
bg
I disagree with Kimmet and Space. I do think ELF is a terrorist organization and it’s pretty clear their intent is to frighten people into not building homes near areas they want to protect.
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY’RE MORE THAN A NUISANCE.
Are you so intimidated by the very word “terrorism” you’ll go nuts to stop it no matter how low-level it is? Have you no sense of priority? If you answered yes to both of these, then terrorists have accomplished their goal – they’ve made you afraid, senseless and foolish. But hey, what do I know – maybe you were a coward before ELF started up.
After we’ve agreed they’re terrorists, we have to decide what to do about them. I maintain that since they’re not killing people they’re not that high on my list of “problems to fix in this country.” Since some of you seem to be confused about this, me calling ELF a nuisance is not a moral judgement. It’s an evaluation of the threat ELF poses.
S, if you fail to see the difference between arson and murder you have bigger problems than arguing with me. And you have yet to answer me. Are you afraid of ELF? If you’re not afraid of them, what are they if they’re not a nuisance?
This is very similar to my feelings about you, s. You’ve threatened to burn my house down, possibly killing my wife and myself. However, since I don’t think you have any intention of backing up that threat, I think you’re more of an nuisance than a terrorist.
To be entirely clear, since you have trouble making distinctions: ELF are terrorists. But not all terrorists are equal. ELF’s level of activity, since they have yet to kill anyone, is a nuisance and I refuse to worry much about it.
bg
Edit:
The last sentance in my 2nd to last paragraph should end, “more of a nuisance than a THREAT.”
Kimmitt
now threats about burning down structures are extortion.
Right, because a building I live in and building I don’t live in (and which does not necessarily even exist) are different things.
I’m glad you enjoy reading my posts; I wish you’d actually do it.
space
bg:
“Low-level” terror? Talk about an oxymoron. You are correct that ELF is not scary. That is because they are not trying to hurt people.
I repeat: If ELF could wipe out developments that they oppose in a simple, non-“violent” manner, I have no doubt they would do so. Burning down ski shacks in Vail (Or was it ski lfts? Whatever. Their other high profile strike.) may be costly but it is hardly fear-inducing.
rkb
ELF is a serious threat for one reason apart from the level of violence they choose to use at the moment — and that is simply that they arrogate to themselves the self-awarded right to such violence in the first place.
s
bg,
I said:
>>
Tell you what. I’ll come over to your house, and burn it down, because I don’t agree with your politics or views. Then we’ll see if you still consider it a “nuisance”.
Al Maviva
So Kimmit, if Mohammad Atta flew a plane into the World Trade Center towers, toppling them, it would be okay as long as nobody was on the plane but Atta, and everybody made it out of the buildings safely?
Or is it somehow different?
bg
s i’m with you on the terrorist part. I’ve condemned them and said what I thought their penalty would and should be. Were I the judge in their arson case, I’d even be willing to tack on extra jailtime because they’re using terrorist tactics.
What more do you think we should be doing?
I’d also like to point out that this conversation goes all the way back to my first poat, the first post on the thread, when I said that terrorists who kill people are worse than terrorists who don’t. Anyone disagree with that?
Kimmitt
So Kimmit, if Mohammad Atta flew a plane into the World Trade Center towers, toppling them, it would be okay as long as nobody was on the plane but Atta, and everybody made it out of the buildings safely?
Or is it somehow different?
Is there any purpose to this hypothetical other than to claim without any kind of support that ELF has the same kind of agenda as Islamic terrorists?
ELF is a serious threat for one reason apart from the level of violence they choose to use at the moment — and that is simply that they arrogate to themselves the self-awarded right to such violence in the first place.
This is the essence of my difficulty. I can get behind any person’s decision to arrogate to themselves the right to nonviolent protest. I am quite certain that said civil disobedience is right and appropriate. But I have trouble with the shading from “civil disobedience which disrupts commerce and day-to-day life” into “civil disobedience which disrupts commerce and day-to-day life through active acts of vandalism.”
s
[i]s i’m with you on the terrorist part. I’ve condemned them and said what I thought their penalty would and should be. Were I the judge in their arson case, I’d even be willing to tack on extra jailtime because they’re using terrorist tactics.[/i]
Glad to hear it! It’s the word “nuisance” that got to me. I understand that you meant it differently than I took it.
As far as what “we” should be doing, these people should be found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Far more important, is people’s attitudes. My problem with this, aside from teh acti itself, is that people don’t take it seriously enough. It’s part of a disturbing trend. Same thing goes for protestors in general. Yes, they have the right to protest. No, they don’t have the right to damage or harm merely because they think they are in the right and that an injustice is being done. This is the same type of RATIONALIZATION that we see for terrorism all over the world.
If only liberals would take terrorism as seriously as political correctness. It seems it’s a terrible offense to call a black a n*gger, but no big deal if you destroy a McDonald’s in the name of anti-globalism. How sick.
Veeshir
Okay Kimmitt, you responded to me civilly, I owe it to you.
How is it different? You live in your house but would be homeless without it. People were getting ready to move into those houses. They had made plans to move out of their present homes and into those. Now they can’t. I don’t see a difference.
to intimidate a population or government
Ummm, developers are a ‘population’, ditto the people who were trying to buy the homes.
Now I have a question, what if the arsonists were doing it for racist reasons, as was discussed by the Washington Post? They said that it could have been racism as, ‘many minorities were buying houses in that predominately white area’.
Would that be terrorism? They would be trying to intimidate a population, minorities.
Some questions just answer themselves.
But that’s different, developers aren’t people. They probably vote GOP./LLL
Kimmitt
You live in your house but would be homeless without it. People were getting ready to move into those houses. They had made plans to move out of their present homes and into those.
Right, but there’s a direct threat to your person inherent in burning down your house with all of your effects and the high probability that a member of your family is there. It’s a different thing.
what if the arsonists were doing it for racist reasons, as was discussed by the Washington Post?
And here is the essence of my difficulty; it feels different to me, but I haven’t figured out why, and I’m concerned that it is because I agree with the politics of the ELF (if not their tactics) and not those of the KKK.
Ummm, developers are a ‘population’, ditto the people who were trying to buy the homes.
The point of terrorism is to be larger than the people affected. The thing is, if you equate action designed to retard a specific project with terrorism, you have a very short distance to go before you reclassify the Sierra Club as terrorists for filing a lawsuit that you find frivolous (what’s the difference between costing someone money by burning down an unoccupied building and costing someone money through a frivolous lawsuit?), or having duelling developers categorize one another as terrorists for blocking each others’ plans to expand into a certain area through legally intimidating one anothers’ suppliers, buyers, etc.
bg
Well s, I don’t really know what else to say. I’m a liberal and I think destroying a McDonald’s is worse than slinging racial epithets. I’m living proof of what you claim to want from liberals.
Look, we all agree that both are bad. Is it that important we fight about which is worse?
Veeshir
Well s, I don’t really know what else to say. I’m a liberal and I think destroying a McDonald’s is worse than slinging racial epithets.
Strawman Alert!
Ummm, we were discussing burning down houses because they’re near wetlands or because the people moving in are black.
I applaud Kimmitt’s honesty in declaring his bias and double standard. He doesn’t think hating all men and preferring an Earth without people is better than only hating some men.
There has to be a joke in there.
Kimmitt
ELF does not think that the earth would be better without people, though I am certain that there are people within it at that level of misanthropy.
It is nice to know that your disinterest in the actual positions of people who disagree with you is more of a universal thing. I don’t feel quite so singled out.
bg
Um Veeshir? Maybe you should read the last graf of s’s last post.
“we were discussing burning down houses because they’re near wetlands or because the people moving in are black.”
No, “we” weren’t. You and Kimmet were. S and I were having our own conversation.
You must posess some impressive narcissism to believe every post on this thread is somehow a response to what you were talking about.
Veeshir
You got me bq, I didn’t see that last sentence in s’ last post. I thought you were responding to me.
I don’t know if I’m a narcissist, I think I’m more of a solipsist.
Al Maviva
Yeah, there is a purpose besides that Kimmit. I just wanted to understand your position clearly. As I though, you seem to think it would be okay to fly planes into the WTC towers, as long as nobody got killed, to make an environmental point, but not to advance Islamacism.
So in your book, milder forms of terrorism are okay, so long as it advances a cause you favor. But I don’t know – how ’bout the kids of a family who had bought a house in that new development and were thinking about moving in. I bet those bastard 10 year old would-be earth rapers are shitting their britches now, eh? That’s the kind of terrorism we can get behind, right Kimmit?
doinkman
I’m an environmentalist and these types of acts disguist me.
Stupid.
..But, I also want to say that the pollution from urban runoff that they were in a stink about is REAL! and can serious negative affect on the water quality on wetlands. Engineers can design devices and filters that mitigate this problem, I know I do it for a living.
I don’t know anything about the particulars involved in this case.
But I would be interested in hearing opinions about whether a home developer has a commitment to limit negative consequences of stormwater runoff. I very strongly believe that they do.
Kimmitt
As I though, you seem to think it would be okay to fly planes into the WTC towers, as long as nobody got killed,
As has been mentioned in multiple parts of this thread, I am fundamentally uncomfortable with any act of violence against person or property, but I more quickly condemn acts of violence against people than against property.
Ramrod
I’m not sure that it has been established that ELF is behind this. They usually leave a calling card. Also, is it true that all of the owners of the destroyed homes were black? This has the look and feel of something else [i.e. not ELF] altogether.
FactCheck
This article is in error. There was no “eco-terrorism” in this case, according to the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5341-2004Dec16.html
bryan
Ha ha, this whole discussion about nothing. Of course burning down empy houses is wrong and crime! I might even agree that if the arsons were the result of a planned political movement, the arsonists should get a harsher penalty than if it was (as it appears to be) some lone apolitical nut. Destroying property is a serious crime, but it is much less serious than intentionally killing civilians. Yes, I think killing those in the army is odious, but killing civilians is even worse. Groups that commit crimes that don’t physically hurt or kill people should not be treated the same as groups that commit crimes that do hurt or kill people. Is that really that hard to understand? Also, you should wait until the facts are in before jumping to conclusions.
pacific poker
internet poker – online poker rooms, online poker sites | poker – internet poker, online poker sites | wsop – poker games, empire poker | internet poker – partypoker, empire poker | world series of poker – poker books, poker games | poker books – texas holdem poker, party poker | party poker – online poker rooms, world series of poker | poker chips – poker games, texas holdem | wsop – poker supplies, poker supplies | poker tournaments – poker supplies, poker online | poker games – texas holdem, poker books | texas hold’em – texas holdem poker, poker books | party poker – poker chips, poker supplies