Terrorists strike New Mexico

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tazo, Sep 6, 2003.

  1. tazo macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #1
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96627,00.html

    The ELF or Earth Liberation Front, a pseudo-terrorist group that seeks to eradicate environmental problems by causing more of them, has struck again! This time in at a New Mexico Land Rover dealership, where they spray painted words such as glutton and shamelessly plugged their organization with ELF.

    Personally I am getting tired of these people; them and the ALF, a very similarly acting 'organization' which recently released thousands of minks which resulted in local livestock being murdered.

    *sigh*
     
  2. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #2
    i see both sides of it. arguably, the ELF and ALF (they are two different things) have done good things in the past... not everything they do has good or better-than-not results, which is probably the result of poor planning. in the case of the times they *do* do good things, it's a question of whether the end justifies the means, and in most cases i agree with the ALF, and some with the ELF. i would champion anyone who spikes logging equipment to protect our invaluable forests from being stolen (we kind of need them to live). but while mink farming is a horrible act of animal cruelty, releasing them into the wild is a rash action.

    pnw
     
  3. tazo thread starter macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #3
    What annoys me is that these people like the ALF and the ELF wantonly disregard the fact these things they destroy are people's property, and their means of living. It vexates me to no end to hear that almost all of a dealership's cars are now unsellable because a terrorist group thinks they are damaging the environment. Doesn't burning hundreds of SUVs and using spray paint cause a lot of damage to the environment? I suppose its just another way these "people" consider their actions better than those around them.
    Hypocrites. :rolleyes:
     
  4. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #4
    yeah all this crap is stupid. the animal thing reminds me of 28 days later when with releasing the monkeys and then london going bye bye.

    iJon
     
  5. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #5
    tazo -- I haven't talked much in these discussions because in the past the ELF has got blasted, I agree that driving 6 MPG SUV's is going to destroy the environment.

    Look even though I disagree with the head Members in how to show people these monsters shouldn't be on the road.

    Personally I agree with a slash and run over burning cars.

    I am afilliated with the ELF, current there is no Long Island Division. :rolleyes:

    That doesn't mean I will not be protesting when a Hummer Dealership opens up near me.
     
  6. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #6
    im gonna ask my biology teacher monday how he feels about the whole suv thing. he has a phd and went to west point, he has pretty insightful and his point of view will be interesting. in my years, i have seen more people driving poor ass hoopties who need some serious smog checks than the nice h2's and suburbans. i was driving the suburban to a football game tonight and it reminded me what i used it for. i felt if a civic hybrid could hold 8 people and even more stuff in the back as well as pull huge trailers (which is all stuff that i do) than we wouldnt need suv's anymore.

    iJon
     
  7. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #7
    Destruction of property won't prove anything. I consider myself an "environmentalist" but find the actions of such groups as the ELF and ALF (at least the highly-publicized ones like this) detestable. It's a waste of energy.

    Destruction of property, and therefore, the owner's livelihood, will only make people more resistant to the activists' views.

    The best way to create meaningful change is to organize boycotts and to get the ear of politicians. It's hard (our system of government is deliberately conservative) but in the long run it works.
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    i don't condone the ELF action. but i don't think it's terrorism. vandalism, yes. but to me, terrorism involves:
    1. actions against civilians
    2. causing great fright and paranoia among the general population
    3. having a political agenda

    ELF has #3, but not the first two.
     
  9. tazo thread starter macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #9
    I vehemently disagree; the ELF has all of those qualities.

    That dealership owns those suv's that were burner, so indirectly they involved civilians.

    If I owned an SUV or even a dealership I would be pretty scared of these people. I of course loosely use the term 'people' ;)

    Irrefragably there is a political agenda driving the ELF and ALF

    -tazo
     
  10. artificiallife macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    #10
    Why? So tire companies have to produce more tires, thereby creating dangerous byproducts and releasing more chemicals into our atmosphere?

    Just let it be, you're only making it worse.

    [mod. edit - Insults are not allowed.]
     
  11. Independence macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    United States
    #11
    i wholeheartedly agree.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    You are just as bad if you advocate the contunued, unfettered production of gas-guzzelers.

    Not that I condone ELF actions, I don't. In fact there is an 11 page thread in the wasteland that I started when the dealership in SD got hit. Before you guys rehash everything we said 2 weeks ago, you might want to review it.

    Ashamed to be on the same side as these guys.

    It's in the wasteland because people couldn't keep from calling each other idiots and other such nonsense.
     
  13. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #13
    If the SUVs are so bad, politicians should enact a big gas tax increase to pay for improved park maintenance and conservation. Remember what happened to big cars in the 70s/80s? Big gas price increases killed them.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    doesn't count. civilians aren't the targets. property is the target.

    again, doesn't count. it's not the general population. plus, the owners don't have claim to a reasonable fear about themselves being harmed. only their property and business.

    applying your logic, everyone who ever shoplifted, peed on your lawn, or hit someone in a bar is a terrorist.
     
  15. Moxiemike macrumors 68020

    Moxiemike

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #15
    I couldn't help but see your qualities for what is terrorism and think "hmmm does that make the US terrorist for our strikes in Iraq? Let's see:

    1. action against civilians.

    There are reports that more than 20,000 civilians were injured in this latest Iraq war. A maximum of about 7800 deaths. Some good info can be found here:

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

    2. Causing great fright and paranoia amongs the general population.

    It seems like the Iraqi people are not happy with America's occupation of their country. They're getting testy, and wondering when the supposed benefits of their liberation will take place.

    3. Having a political agenda.

    Well, there are many! Removing Saddam. War against "terrorism" which is such an abstract—and it makes me sick that America is fighting abstracts with concrete things such as bombs. The oil situation—Halliburton being given contracts to help "rebuild' Iraq. And a more ethereal concept—Bush piggybacking rabid patriotism in a post 9-11 america to get support and possible gain leverage in the next election because of this war.


    As such, is America really any better than Al Qaeda, the IRA, the PLO or the Moussad??
     
  16. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    terrorism is such a loaded term it, IMHO, shouldn't be used to discribe vandals and idiots. Its indiscriminate use of the word downplays the real threat of folks who are willing to engage in mass murder of innocents. When the fools in ELF start blowing up people I will agree the term is justified.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Hmm 3000+ dead in firey plane crashes vs. spray paint on a few new cars...

    Yup, it all sounds like the same terrorism to me...
    :rolleyes:

    Do you remember the 80's at all?

    Oh, no, you were three. Well I do, and I remember the big kids used to love to spray paint stuff all the time. It was like sport for them; a rite of passage.

    There's still a ****load of graffiti on the cement pillars underneath the Rte. 30 bridge near where I grew up. I guess you'd call it "ground zero" though, being the site of so much terrorist activity.

    Get real.
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    Your time is your only capital. You spend time to do business, to acquire the money to pay your rent and buy food.

    And to buy your car, of whatever sort.

    Anybody who costs you money, through looting or vandalism, is effectively saying that some part of your life is meaningless to them. It's rarely safe to say that to someone's face, which is why these cowards do their nighttime hit-and-run...

    ELF and ALF are nothing more than a bunch of nihilists who have deluded themselves into believing that their version of environmentalism is the Only Way. Arrogant, sleazoid trash is about as close to polite as I can get in describing that ratpack.

    A small minority of SUVs get 8 mpg. Most are 20 mpg or more. What's the mpg on a 747? A train? A semi?

    How come the only "bad vehicles" are those of private individuals? For over 20 years, now, I've heard some refrain against the personal freedom as to choice of what one drives, or when or where. "Restrain the individual's freedom" seems to be more important than actually looking at other uses of transportation fuel...

    'Rat
     
  19. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #19
    In their opinion maybe you are doing the same with your way of life to their life quality. By driving a SUV and wasting resources you damage the environment more than necessary which has a direct influence on their life quality in the mid- and long-term. So some part of their lifes is meaningless to others, following your definition.

    Those people are highly frustrated, because they don't see any change, it's just getting worse all the time. The industry has no interest in changing things and has a strong Lobby.

    So don't be too self-righteous. It really depends on the point of view. They just switched to "pay-back" mode. If that is appropriate is discussable, but I don't like your attitude that these people don't care for other people. Maybe they care way more for other people with their goals than any of those streamlined consumer citizens who fill the pockets of the industry managers and politicians without asking questions or caring about their future in a toxic wasteland without resources...

    groovebuster
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Well said. There is indeed more than one point of view to be considered here.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    "In their opinion maybe you are doing the same with your way of life to their life quality. By driving a SUV and wasting resources you damage the environment more than necessary which has a direct influence on their life quality in the mid- and long-term."

    Yeah. Their opinion. They define an SUV as waste. I want to know who gave them these godlike powers to define reality for others?

    SUVs are so far down the list of damaging anything that to be a vandal from one's arrogance is just really pathetic.

    Use of petroleum products? We'd be better served if we didn't have foreign military pilots in training over here--as a for-instance. Air pollution? There are multitudes of far-worse sources. Like I've said before, all these symbolic efforts strike at personal freedoms.

    So I'm not being at all self-righteous. It's this claque of nihilistic twerps that are full of self-righteousness--and they're arrogant in it. They're no different from any religious fundamentalist.

    'Rat
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    It's just stuff, dude. It's property, sure, but it's not life.

    It's a sick world where the things you own become the things that own you, and that's what you're saying we are; a world where possessions are time and time is life.

    I'm sorry, I just don't make the same connections between life and my ****. I've got a different set of values, perhaps less materialistic.
     
  23. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #23
    Who gave you the godlike powers to define their reality?

    They are a symbol... maybe? ;) Would you prefer that they shut down a whole coal fired power plant?

    What you don't seem to get, all the little things sum up. And maybe you should do the math for once. Considering how much fuel a SUV needs compared to a smaller vehicle, just calculate how much gas could havebeen saved during it's life-cycle... It's always little things, you know? And it is the little things that have to change (in the personal environment) first to make people understand

    Reread your post from the beginning and you'll see that you are exactly what you are accusing those fellows of... You're not less a fundamentlist and nihilistic than they are, you are just standing on the other side of the fence, defining your personal freedom through doing whatever you like to to your environment to keep up your personal comfort...

    The only solution possible is to discuss and to find comprimises. You already showed that you are not even able to listen (and you are probably one of many) ... so actually I don't wonder that people who care about their environment start to take more drastic measures.

    Please, at least try once to see both sides... it makes things way easier! ;)

    groovebuster
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    And there were a lot of people who agreed with the principles Judge Roy Moore advocated, yet condemned his tactics. I think you were among those who said he was doing the right thing, just in the wrong way, if you'll allow me to paraphrase.

    I and others feel the same way about the people who did this to the SUVs. I abhor their tactics, but I agree with the principle that they are fighting for. I sure don't recall you using name-calling when those religious "twerps" were having their Jesus love-in on the steps of the Alabama courthouse. Maybe it's because you disagree with this group's philosophy, and you agreed with Moore's?
     
  25. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    First, look up nihilism. These people have both a) a belief that certain things in this society are damaging our environment permenantly and b) a want to destroy such things. Maybe if their efforts were to bring down society as a whole via key tactical strikes, I could agree with you.

    You can call their methods abhorable, their mentally messed up, whatever. But they aren't nihalists.

    As to your assertion that restricting SUV's is simply a thinly veiled attempt at stripping citizens of their civil liberties, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

    Civil liberties (ie. the freedom for a person to act in any way they want) are a very good thing. However, they have their limit: when a person acts in such a way as to harm others or society as a whole, they have overstepped the bounds of civil liberties.

    I believe that when a person makes a choice that is detrimental to our environment, they are overstepping the bounds of civil liberties. They are, IMO, harming society. Now, EVERYONE makes some decisions that harm the environment. What I believe our government's responsibility to be is to set the societal standard for what we consider an unlawful harm to our environment.

    You could argue that prohibiting the dumping of nuclear waste into a national forest is a infraction on civil liberties. Most people would disagree with you, however, because they see the clearcut harm to society. Many people, myself included, view our society's dependance on oil and other nasty fossil fuels as a harm to our environment and, as a result, a harm to society. An obvious extension to this is opposition to the truly greedy forms of transportation out there. Hence my dislike of SUVs, which are some of the most gas hungry private vehicles on the road.

    Your points to other forms of wasteful transportation aren't all that accurate. A truck transporting vegetables from Florida to Michigan isnt' comparable to a single person driving a SUV to work. One is an example of distribution necessity and its cost to the environment is spread across all the producers and distributers of the vegetables as well as the consumers of those goods, the other is an individual making a daily choice where the cost to the environment is put solely on that individual's head.

    Similarly in an airplane, there are issues of practicality and dispersement of cost to the environment. Biking, driving, walking, etc. from NY to Cali. are all infeasible for most people in most situations. And lets say the 400 people who can fit on a 747 decided to all drive instead. How efficient would THAT be compared to all of them packed into a single airplane.

    Taft
     

Share This Page