<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree with your thoughtful posts on this thread, for the most part. And appreciate your input very much, given how difficult or risky it can be to discuss this topic, with the backlash that is possible, one way or another.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I think a few of your points below require qualification:<br> </div>
<div>Given the limited definition of terrorism I have been using, deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes, I am not sure that tree spiking qualifies as eco-terrorism. Again, just as with Kai, I ask you to offer documentation that anyone has been killed by tree spiking. And even if this was true, you would need to argue that the person who spiked the tree intended to kill. Terrorists who put bombs on crowded buses and detonate them, know full well they are going to kill civilians. This is their clear and deliberate aim. Suicide bombers with vests know full well when they walk into a marketplace or cafe and blow themselves up, they are taking civilians with them. They are not just trying to cause economic damage, or slow or stop an industry, such as may be intended via tree spiking. The 9/11 hijackers knew full well that the people on the planes, and those in the buildings, were going to die. Even protest movements using civil disobedience, though they know in advance that violence is possible, and someone could get killed, are not terrorists, to my mind, though our government appears ready to define them as such to squelch dissent, if they have not already. Though these activities are political, they are not aimed at killing civilians, even though deaths may result (think Kent State for an example), and the protesters know this.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let's not be deceived regarding the power over the public that our government is attempting to extend by creating a very broad definition of "terrorism."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Let's consider more examples of what is or is not "terrorism."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider scaring a juror with threats of death, to control the outcome of a trial. Let's say that someone the juror knows is murdered to show the juror that they are next if they don't comply. Is this terrorism? If the aim is to let a buddy, with some scary and dangerous friends, walk free from a criminal charge, I would say no. It is not the killing of civilians for political purposes. However, if civilians were killed to influence a court decision, such as a judicial proceeding deciding how the so called enemy combatants at Guantanamo are handled, then maybe these actions could be defined as terrorism. Maybe. Also, perhaps a drug cartel killing civilians to influence governmental policies (Columbia) impacting their business, might be defined as terrorism. But some of the clear cut cases of terrorism are the bombings in Spain and the United Kingdom in recent years, aimed randomly at civilians, by groups opposed to the Spanish, British etc. presence in Iraq. Even a targeted assassination, like Chile's leader Allende during the 1973 CIA supported coup, I would not label terrorism. His assassination was not aimed at civiliains for political purposes.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> For those who don't remember, that involves hammering a spike<br>into a tree that is likely to be cut down by loggers so that it will
<br>cause havoc when it goes through the sawing machinery, possibly maiming<br>or killing those running the machines. That action has a more<br>straightforward goal in mind that involves injury and/or death.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I also question this statement below:</div>
<div><br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">The difference is that ecoterrorists are not routinely raised from birth<br>not to question their beliefs. They do not hold the epitome of
<br>unquestioning (faith) to be a virtue. They do not have a tome that they<br>are told is God's Word that describes punishments that sometimes involve<br>death for various categories of people. Ecoterrorists individually
<br>become extremists on their own, not through a tradition of learning that<br>endorses the eschewing of fact and the adoration of blind subservience.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Without documenting the psychology and background of alleged "eco-terrorists," I'm not sure your description above is accurate. Some of the members of Earth First, EFL, etc. may have been brought up in very conservative religious homes. They may have unquestioning faith of some kind, and may have developed these beliefs not by "becoming extremists on their own," but due to the impacts of upbringing. And I think it possible a Bible carrying Christian could become an "eco-terrorist," in the broad definition our government applies. There are an astonishing variety of different forms of belief that are based on the Bible. And there is a strong ecological movement within the Christian community, so the "environmentally friendly" that Kai suggested that may be giving some kind of support to "eco-terrorism" includes Christians.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree emphatically with your statements below. How many millions in the USA have turned their back on fact and evidence due to following religious principles? The denial of the validity of scientific findings, with the attacks on the evidence for evolution, and the denial of the science on global warming, has implications that are impeding progress to solve very serious problems in the world. And the use of religion by politicians to manipulate those of faith, especially the family values anti-gay agenda, which is mostly a religious based agenda, has been a major factor in the Bush administration's rise to power, with the damaging outcomes I don't need to list. It is not an empty claim to assert that the unquestioning belief in religious principles that are highly doubtful, insofar as this creates a mindset lacking in skeptical critical analytical skills applied to important aspects of life, has profound negative implications.
<br> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I don't think that Richard Dawkins is trying to make the point that all<br>extremists are religious. I think he's trying to say that a subsection
<br>of society that promotes turning your back on fact and evidence in favor<br>of unquestioning obedience to an idea that is supposed to be higher than<br>the rule of law is in fact dangerous for society, even if most of the
<br>individual members of that subsection of society are in fact quite nice<br>neighbors to have a beer with, and wouldn't harm a hair on your head.<br><br>Paul<br><br>Kai Eiselein, editor wrote:<br>> I think Dawkins is focusing his energy on just one point rather than
<br>> looking at human nature as a whole.<br>> Whenever dogma, be it religious or political, is taken to the extreme,<br>> it is a dangerous thing.<br>> There are polical groups on both the left and right that are willing
<br>> to kill, yet have no religious motivation. Most notably on the left<br>> are extremist environmental groups that engage in eco-terrorism. Using<br>> Dawkins line of reasoning, anyone who is environmentaly friendly could
<br>> be seen as supportive of eco-terrorism.<br>> Any belief, taken too far, can result in fanatical zealots willing to<br>> kill anyone opposed to their viewpoint.<br>> </blockquote>