Is spiking trees terrorism?

[First Crusader]

Tree huggers often go through ridiculous measures to protect their gods. Like in any political group, there are fanatics who are willing to use violence to achieve their ends.

Some greens will enter forests with logging activity and hammer large spikes into trees. This may not seem so bad, but if a logger is unfortunate enough to hit that spike with his saw, the spike shatters, sending shards into the eyes and face of the logger.

I think there is no better definition of terrorism.

EDIT: This may have seemed a little harsh to tree huggers. I have nothing against the movement. Despite what one may think of my sig, I don't like terrorists, regardless of their political motives.

[Bovril]

Terrorism is an essentially redundant term. It means something like 'violence motivated by political or religious goals'. Sure this is terorism, but so, in that case, is a policeman chasing down and arresting someone who does this, since he's violently aprehending the guy in order to achieve a political goal.
Terrorism is a loaded word that no longer describes realities but subjective perceptions of realities. For example, when an Iraqi insurgent fires a mortar at a U.S. military compund its terrorism, when a US artiliary peice shells Faluja its counter-terorism.

[Garbarsardar]

Redneck inbreds often go through ridiculous measures to have what they think is fun. Like in any political group, there are fanatics who are willing to use violence to achieve their ends.

Some rednecks will approach highways with driving activity and throw large spikes on the road's surface. This may not seem so bad, but if a driver is unfortunate enough to hit that spike with his wheel, the spike causes the instanteneous deflation of the tyre endangering directly the life of the driver.

I think there is no better definition of terrorism.

[LordSaradain]

Redneck inbreds often go through ridiculous measures to have what they think is fun.

Well, these treehuggers dont do this because they enjoy doing it, they do it to protect the trees.

Jamming nails into trees is apparently not harmless for any loggers, but I wouldn't call it terrorism. After all, nobody will get hurt if you dont chop down the trees, and loggers usually wear googles to protect them from splinters and stuff anyway.

btw, I'm no treehugger and I voted for other, not 'no'.

[First Crusader]

Redneck inbreds often go through ridiculous measures to have what they think is fun. Like in any political group, there are fanatics who are willing to use violence to achieve their ends.

Some rednecks will approach highways with driving activity and throw large spikes on the road's surface. This may not seem so bad, but if a driver is unfortunate enough to hit that spike with his wheel, the spike causes the instanteneous deflation of the tyre endangering directly the life of the driver.

I think there is no better definition of terrorism.

You may think that was really witty thing to say, but you have no idea what you are talking about. :laughing:

Throwing spikes on the road and causing accidents is pointless. Carbombs, tree spikes, and other booby traps are designed to kill or badly wound an enemy, which is meant to aid the cause.

Lord Saradin, terrorists plant booby traps to protect "the faith", but that is still no excuse for doing it. True, nails and spikes usually don't do any harm, but that is irrelevant. If a nail is put into a tree with the intent to hurt another person, that is terrorism, or at least a crime with vicious intent.

[CrayonVonCaesar]

Ha! :sign_stup :laughing:

Words such as terrorism, terrorist, terror, terrier, teradaktyl (scratch the last two) have been so overused in the last few years they have lost all meaning.
Do i think its wrong to spike a tree? Yes.
Is it terrorism? Could be, could be counter-terrorism as well. Fecking trees are being terrorised for sure.

Very odd question man. Deserves an odd answer i think.

[Farnan]

Stop making fun of rednecks, we all aren't that bad...

[Atheist Peace]

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

No, it's not.

[First Crusader]

No, it's not.

No point in disagreeing with a post if you don't post a counter explanation.

And for those of you who believe that violence is a legitimate way to "protect the trees":

Since when was the welfare of a frickin forest more important than a human life?

[Admiral Nelson]

No point in disagreeing with a post if you don't post a counter explanation.

And for those of you who believe that violence is a legitimate way to "protect the trees":

Since when was the welfare of a frickin forest more important than a human life?

How about we don't enter into this discussion for two reasons:
1) It's not trees we are talking about here, but large forests.
2) Loggers are supposed to wear goggles and would never die from a stupid tree splinter.

[First Crusader]

How about we don't enter into this discussion for two reasons:
1) It's not trees we are talking about here, but large forests.
2) Loggers are supposed to wear goggles and would never die from a stupid tree splinter.

Logging companies usually replace trees they cut down with new ones. Old growth and rare specimens of forest are generally left untouched. A large forest is just a bunch of trees that are easily regrown in a decade.

True, spikes and nails in trees rarely hurt anyone, but they were planted with the INTENT to hurt someone, which is just as wicked.

[Justinian]

2) Loggers are supposed to wear goggles and would never die from a stupid tree splinter.

I think iron splinters would go through goggles, or at least the other, less protected, parts of the face.

[mike^_^]

I wouldn't call it "terrorism" , because calling something "terrorism" has severe consequences, for instance if you are proclaimed a "terrorist" by the state, you can be secretly arrested, detained indefinately and secretly executed. so I wouldn't call it terrorism, it's certainly an unfriendly act

the environmental movement as a whole is joke, its not about "saving" the environment, it's about enslaving the people

[Atheist Peace]

No point in disagreeing with a post if you don't post a counter explanation.

Did you even read my post?

[First Crusader]

Did you even read my post?

All it said was:

No, it's not.

Please explain WHY you disagree.

[First Crusader]

No, it's not.

Oh wait, I get it! Sorry, I thought you were arguing with the dictionary! Silly me! :laughing:

I will post my counter-argument tomorrow.

[crazyhorse]

There is a book on this subject by Michael Crichton, can't remember the name right now, but it was basically your standard terrorist threat yadda, yadda, yadda. Except it was orchestrated by the terrorist group ELF(Environmental Liberation Front) a real life organization on the far fringe of the environmentalist movement. They've only done relatively minor sabotage up to now but the potential is there for something horrible. They obviously view human life as insignificant compared to trees and such and they're incredibly shadowy. We know far more about bin Laden's whereabouts then we know about the leaders of this group.

[Erik]

Like many people here I think "terrorism" or "terrorist" is an over-used word.
Ever since 9/11 it's been used to describe all kinds of people who do something wrong or illegal.

It's a dangerous practice, and I think it's totally wrong, but it's not terrorism.

Calling them terrorists is just jumping onto the "lets call everybody we dislike a terrorist" bandwagen.

[TheKwas]

I don't really consider it a "violent" act, so I wouldn't call it terrorism, nor would I consider loggers using improper logging tactics to be innocent. But it is a method of direct action used to acheive a political end, which is sometimes and sometimes not justified. Personally, if spiking causes the slowing down of clear cutting (which still happens) or improper logging tactics, I'm all for it. If it's done just to promote the fanitical "return to the trees" ideologies, then I'm against it. I consider it a legit mean, but the end is what really matters.

Oh, and anyone who considers the ELP an actual threat to anything should really get out more. You have a better chance of being killed crossing the street or being killed by a rabid porcupine. Not to mention being killed by pollution and other things the "eco-terrorists" are fighting against.

[Damage_Inc]

I am reluctant to go so far as to call this terrorism. But I suppose it is a form of it. The biggest danger to the loggers is not splinters it is having the chainsaw kick back from hitting the metal this could potentially sever a leg. I don't know though. We have peta people come to the area sneak on mink farms and release all the mink is that terrorism ?