Is Eco-terrorism ever justifiable?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Because it's still millions of people who have nothing to do with it that you are punishing?

There are more jobs than just off-shore drilling.

And there would be more jobs if the US had industrial hemp.

Hell, we can use hemp to make fuckin' biodiesel for our cars so we can lessen our dependence on oil.

You don't just toss a 50 year old dude with 4 kids who has worked on an oil rig for 20 years into some other job.

[Valgora]

I've read that one too.

However,

the eco-terrorist group was just a front. Something for the real bad guy to blame because leader was working for him. The bad guy just wanted to get rid of his space hotel and using eco-terrorists was his cover up.

Yeah! That! It's been years since I read that one.

Didn't he want to destroy DC (specifically the Pentagon)?

Yes on DC. I don't know about the Pentagon, but I think so. He was wanting to destroy some records the US gov't had on him. And what better way to do that than dropping a space station on it.

[The Lone Alliance]

Humanity comes first, environment comes second. Anything else is just social Darwinist misanthropy.

"Fuck the environment! Fuck the Earth! Humanity is more important."

Time card: a few years later

Humanity is killed off by Mother Nature. The removal of the parasite has allowed the nature to being healing itself.

No if mother nature declared war on man we'd most likely nuke the earth just to spite any animal that might evolve after us.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

"Fuck the environment! Fuck the Earth! Humanity is more important."

Time card: a few years later

Humanity is killed off by Mother Nature. The removal of the parasite has allowed the nature to being healing itself.

No if mother nature declared war on man we'd most likely nuke the earth just to spite any animal that might evolve after us.

Cockroaches laugh at your puny nuclear weapons!

[MERIZoC]

Nothing more perfectly encapsulates how useless and politicized the concept of terrorism is than "eco terrorism". When activists that stop illegal whalers can be condemned as terrorists, but not people that slaughter the indigenous for protecting their land, it becomes eminently clear what the purpose of the term is.

[MERIZoC]

Wasn't Kaczinski a Luddite?

Yeah, he was an anarcho-primitivist. He released a manifesto about how technology was destroying the planet on making people effectively slaves to it. I've actually read it before. It's about as shitty as you'd probably imagine. While he rejected efforts by his attorney to enter an insanity plea, several psychologists have since diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia.

Kaczynski was explitily not a anarcho-primitivist, nor was he a Luddite (he existed over 100 years after the Luddites).

[Chuching]

As stated above, terrorism is never the answer, no matter how noble the cause. Not only is it morally bankrupt; it is counter-intuitive. Do you want the public to see all environmentalists as terrorists? Go ahead. See how that affects your cause.

[Rusozak]

On a side note, aside form maybe Ireland's independence, when has terrorism ever actually worked? In every single contemporary example of terrorism I have seen or heard of, it has only ever served to embolden their targets to hold on to their beliefs and unite against said terrorists.

It kind of worked in a way in the American Revolution too.
It forced the British to go so hardliner against dissent that the guilt by association and the attempt at collective punishment of the all for the actions of the few outraged the colonists to the point of revolt.

Perhaps, but still doesn't make it right. In both those case, it was a subjugated population seeking liberation from another power. Any acts of eco-terrorism are unlikely to have the same effect. It's not nearly as pervasive of an issue as a foreign power subjugating you and your people. That's the main issue of environmentalism: The effects are not always immediate, visible, or easy to identify. Turning to violence is sure as hell not going to change that.

[Valgora]

Yeah, he was an anarcho-primitivist. He released a manifesto about how technology was destroying the planet on making people effectively slaves to it. I've actually read it before. It's about as shitty as you'd probably imagine. While he rejected efforts by his attorney to enter an insanity plea, several psychologists have since diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia.

Kaczynski was explitily not a anarcho-primitivist, nor was he a Luddite (he existed over 100 years after the Luddites).

He could have been a Neo-Luddite.

[Petrasylvania]

No if mother nature declared war on man we'd most likely nuke the earth just to spite any animal that might evolve after us.

Cockroaches laugh at your puny nuclear weapons!

Airburst bombs filled with diatomaceous earth.

[MERIZoC]

Kaczynski was explitily not a anarcho-primitivist, nor was he a Luddite (he existed over 100 years after the Luddites).

He could have been a Neo-Luddite.

A term I've never liked, since its a complete misunderstanding of the original luddites.

[Valgora]

No if mother nature declared war on man we'd most likely nuke the earth just to spite any animal that might evolve after us.

Cockroaches laugh at your puny nuclear weapons!

The Water Bears (Tardigrades) laugh even harder.

[Albrenia]

Cockroaches laugh at your puny nuclear weapons!

The Water Bears (Tardigrades) laugh even harder.

From space, no less.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Cockroaches laugh at your puny nuclear weapons!

The Water Bears (Tardigrades) laugh even harder.

Indeed! They can survive the vacuum of space!

[Sovaal]

"Fuck the environment! Fuck the Earth! Humanity is more important."

Time card: a few years later

Humanity is killed off by Mother Nature. The removal of the parasite has allowed the nature to being healing itself.

No if mother nature declared war on man we'd most likely nuke the earth just to spite any animal that might evolve after us.

Life survived the K/T event and the Permian mass extinction. It would survive nukes.

[Infected Mushroom]

Its shocking that so many people are okay with it.

No its not okay. Its criminal and its intentionally damaging property.

[Hammer Britannia]

Terrorism is still terrorism, even if it isn't killing anybody.

[Vilemyr]

Terrorism is still terrorism, even if it isn't killing anybody.

Buzzword. Realistically who is the victim? The CEO's and chairmen who make millions annually? Yes, yes, they're very persecuted.

[Hammer Britannia]

Terrorism is still terrorism, even if it isn't killing anybody.

Buzzword. Realistically who is the victim? The CEO's and chairmen who make millions annually? Yes, yes, they're very persecuted.

Oh, so it's perfectly fine because it's some rich guy?

What if it was a poor hobo who owned the crap that these Eco-Terrorists damage? Does it make it right then?

CEOs, corrupt as they are, are still human

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Terrorism is still terrorism, even if it isn't killing anybody.

Buzzword. Realistically who is the victim? The CEO's and chairmen who make millions annually? Yes, yes, they're very persecuted.

The tens of millions of Americans and others worldwide who have to deal with increased energy costs, the millions of people who are now out of a job, etc.

[Infected Mushroom]

Terrorism is still terrorism, even if it isn't killing anybody.

Buzzword. Realistically who is the victim? The CEO's and chairmen who make millions annually? Yes, yes, they're very persecuted.

Its still vandalism.

[Ohioan Territory]

No, not really. Disagreeing with something doesn't justify criminally damaging something involved with it. Perhaps making more people aware of the dangers of what certain Republicans and big businesses are advocating and encouraging the use of more eco-friendly options in say cars, for example, would do better to protect the environment. Attacking someone or damaging property will only work to make you and your faction seem unappealing to the masses most likely.

[MERIZoC]

Buzzword. Realistically who is the victim? The CEO's and chairmen who make millions annually? Yes, yes, they're very persecuted.

Oh, so it's perfectly fine because it's some rich guy?

What if it was a poor hobo who owned the crap that these Eco-Terrorists damage? Does it make it right then?

CEOs, corrupt as they are, are still human

Know a lot of hobos with oil rigs, do you?

[Hammer Britannia]

Oh, so it's perfectly fine because it's some rich guy?

What if it was a poor hobo who owned the crap that these Eco-Terrorists damage? Does it make it right then?

CEOs, corrupt as they are, are still human

Know a lot of hobos with oil rigs, do you?

Goddamnit, I am trying to make a point, stop pointing out the lack of logic in a hobo owning a oil rig

[Ardrentt]

Depends on your value judgement towards mankind, or specific parts of it, and nature.

From my end, I'm going to argue "No." in that the killing part is not okay. The sabotaging aspect is a bit more grey.