you broke my redaction cherry! kudos! Though I would have liked the old school Sharpie cross out better.
Seriously, there is a certain class of people the Hummer appeals too- the arrogant, inconcerned, morally and socially aloof. For those Suburban soccer moms who drive vehicles over a 2 ton curb weight- there is no sport nor utility use for these people.
Not to mention the cubic volume of these things on the road and constant sight-blockage they represent.

I have to give contractors a pass though, because that’s who gets real use out of them, and to get away with the $3,000 gas credit they should have a GC licensce.

When we first heard the story of a Washington DC man who’s Hummer had been vandalized by environmental terrorists, we were surprised. It wasn’t the act of Hummer vandalism that surprised us, since we see that all the time – in fact just last w…

I suppose my gut instinct is to see everything as shades of gray and, other than the severity of their actions and the differences in their motives, I still feel that they meet the basic criteria of terrorism (illegal, using violence as a tool, actions intended to intimidate/influence a person or population, and motivated by some sort of ideology). In this case they ‘technically’ fit that definition, and other than being low level petty stuff it differs in nothing but the degree of severity.

You’re right though: with the people we have in power and the abuses they’re willing to commit in the name of “security” and combating their terrorist hype it’s probably not wise to toss the phrase around without getting extremely specific about what you mean.

Where it gets scary in calling 2-bit vandals who vandalize property to raise eco awareness is where the Gub’mint can wiretap and datamine us when we join a demonstration against damming a river, or a creek, spring; chopping down a forest, etc., etc. — just so they can verify we aren’t one of them “terr’ist” types, yannow?

Don’t get me wrong, I totally found the views you expressed here to be very interesting, and I agree with EVERY point you made here with the sole exception of, what I feel, is lightly tossing the label of “terr’ist” out there a bit too easily, that’s all.

Great post, and great conversation, y’all ! ! ! !

UN short legal definition, also proposed by Alex P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the “peacetime equivalent of a war crime.”

WAR CRIME? Sorry, falls a little short.

And let’s take a look at the other definitions:

On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”[6]

No intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. Not terrorism.

Next!

“Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.”

“Repeated”? No, it was an isolated incident. “Anxiety-inspiring”, well maybe you need to get on some Big Pharma drugs if this gives you anxiety.

How about we have a narrow definition for terrorism, this way our civil liberties remain intact? I just posted on my blog a story about how the Drug Czar said that marijuana growers are terrorists. A tad ridiculuous if you ask me.

I’m kinda with you on this. Someone driving a Hummer get’s their punishment at the pump. Let’s see, 50 gallon tank X $3.00/gallon gas / 5 mpg (cosine of stupid)= ummmm…well let’s not bother with the details. It hurts…okay.

Dustin

You’re exactly right on the money. While “terrism” might be a little strong, no one should endorse destruction in the name of a political movement.

And please, from now on, save the personal insults… they’ll just get redacted anyway.

United States Gov’t Definition: …activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…”

UN 1994 General Assembly Definition: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

Tell me again, how is this not terrorism again? You may not like it, and you may see it as hype, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The vandals in this case were motivated by a political ideology, they used violence & broke the law, and their motive was retributive intimidation for both this man and hummer owners in general. They’re terrorists in every sense of the word. Murderers? No, but not innocents either.

This is exactly the kind of hysteria the neocons need to lump ordinary Americans (while vandals) into the same category as Osama bin Laden and steal our civil liberties.