Centerfield

Great comment. Agree 100%. There is NO justification for these criminals. They are no different than Al Quaeda or any other millenarial, terrorist group. They are very sick people.

Nonsense. I can applaud whatever I like. I would never do anything so destructive or break the law myself, but I could care less if someone did. What sort of crocodile tears can you possibly shed for the scumbag developers who built those taj mahals or the parasites on society who might have bought them? Save your tears for all the real violence being perpetrated--on people, not elite property--by the deadly combination of guns and Christians--like yesterday in Texas or today at that Wendy's.

This is so counterproductive to my cause (as an environmentalist) that I can't help wondering if this was done by angry haters of environmentalists to make us look bad. Kind of like the Roman Emperor Nero was said to have done to the Christians. I wish ELF would realize how badly they sabotage their own cause, especially if they truly were the culprits in this case.
Instead of burning down the houses, I would have recommended picketing/sit-ins in the street in front of the houses when the occupants are present. It can be especially effective for attention if you get arrested for civil disobedience, since it can be argued that you are guilty of nothing worse than exercising your First Amendment rights.

Elf is not the left. Elf is crazy screwed up idiots financially backed by equally crazy conservatives to make the real progressive movement look bad.
And by the way, isn't it just so convenient to have these homes burn as the RE market starts to tank?

Thank-you Nadine for such a vivid demonstration of how idiocy is counterproductive to even a noble cause. Notice, however, that I'm not crying for the developer, I'm crying for the insult to the ideals our country runs on, and the damage done to it by deeply misguided zealots.

Notice further that I don't feel that my compassion or my passion is so scarce that I need to ration it out in only the most extreme cases, as you suggest. Your argument on this point is simply foolish. I don't experience any difficulties feeling troubled by ELF's actions just because I also feel troubled by a shooting at a restaurant or a rape of a child, for example.

Brainburst, that's a pretty interesting conspiracy theory you're toting there. One might even say it's an extraordinary claim. Round here, we follow the rubric that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'll accept the claim that ELF is composed of mental defectives. But do you have ANY evidence they're financed by conservatives seeking to undermine progressives? If you don't have any evidence, you ought to step away from the tinfoil.

As to the hypothesis that a struggling developer might have set his development on fire and framed ELF, that's entirely plausible. And would make a nifty Law and Order.

But since there's no evidence of that yet, I'll stick with the most parsimonious interpretation. If it turns out thew developer did it, I tip my hat to him for composing such authentically idiotic propaganda to go along with it.

these people are funded by the HSUS and PETA. why doesnt that point ever get brought up. war on terror should be here at home even stronger than abroad. we have non profit tax exempt orgs donating to terrorist and we are allowing it. PETA donated 45K to defend an elf member for firebombing a building. were is the investigation of these home land terrorist and their sponsors?

I take it nadine you know the developers personally. You must, since you are so aware of what's right and what's wrong i wouldnt imagine that you would say such a thing without having full knowledge, right? Same with the prospective buyers, correct? If you do, ok, maybe you are right. Unfortunately, chances are you dont, and making uninformed statements like the ones above is what makes those statements, well, ignorant. Or maybe it was the gun wielding christians that set them on fire? Let me guess, they brought down the hindenburg too, right?

By the way...if one of those law abiding citizen would have had a gun that tradegy at wendy's would not have been what it was.....

these people are funded by the HSUS and PETA. why doesnt that point ever get brought up. war on terror should be here at home even stronger than abroad. we have non profit tax exempt orgs donating to terrorist and we are allowing it. PETA donated 45K to defend an elf member for firebombing a building. were is the investigation of these home land terrorist and their sponsors?

Sounds like a little "accident " by the builders, rather than work by ELF. Those McMansions sat around how long in this depressed market?

Now anyone with a $3 can of spray paint can get back their millions in crappy investments.

I call BS on ELF doing this.

Francis,you have no actual evidence of this, do you?

Please note that the development was only partially completed. It does not seem to have been the case that completed houses were sitting around on the market for months. I'm open to correction on that point if someone has documented reliable information.

Interesting side note here. Penn Gillette said his show, Bullshit, got the most angry feedback not from conservative christians but from conspiracy theorists. By far. I note this because this thread here has attracted a higher than usual number of whackjobs sporting conspiracy theories, having no evidence, only biased suspicions.

It's quite ironic that such visitors are examples of the sort of thing I worry about in the main post, people who are willing to be sympathetic to or apologist about terrorist activity, simply because they share some common ideology, in this case, the anti-corporatism, pro-environment type.

I can't help but notice how similar these folks arguments are to post-9/11 suggestions by islamic fundamentalists that it was really the Jews who were behind all of it.

As a journalist (1974 BS in Communications, U. of Illinois), I cringe at use of the word "ecoterrorist." Arson is a serious crime, but it is not terrorism! What I say to fellow journalists: Please, do the right thing and use the term "eco-arsonists," if you must. But reserve the word "terrorists" for those who deserve that label, who want to kill and terrorize as many people as they can. Don't trivialize or water down the word "terrorists" by using it the way it was used in this story.

And as a non-moron with a master's degree in critical thinking, I'm certain that such behavior can comfortably be described as terrorism. It's violent, illegal, and subversive political activity used for the sake of fear, intimidation, and imagined political gain.

Here's the thing. Legally speaking the actors here are arsonists. We don't have laws against terrorism per se. But to speak of these actors as arsonists obscures the fact that they are undertaking violent anti-social actions for political reasons. You are correct that these folks are indeed arsonists. but they are also terrorists, using arson as their chosen tool to invoke terror.

I find the "don't water it down" argument to be a red herring. If the meaning fits and helps folks understand the activity, use the word unless there's a better replacement that doesn't obscure the relevant distinguishing factors at hand. What's quite possible is that the coming decades will bring many different types of mass movement political activity that seeks to invoke fear using criminal violence. When regular political political channels fail to bring about the desired remedies, radicalization occurs. When radicalization crosses over to the use of violence to intimidate, it ought to be recognized as terrorism. Of course, some of this terrorism may be comparatively petty, but terrorism it still is.

So I'll cheerfully concede that igniting (hopefully) unoccupied buildings is comparatively less objectionable than, say, car-bombing a market. Yet that doesn't speak to the point. As a journalist, you ought never use language which in any way obscures the distinguishing factor in these actions, which is violence undertaken to invoke fear for imagined political gain.

It's especially troubling to me when journalists suggest using substitute descriptive terminology which obscures the main distinguishing factors at issue. For example, when a newspaper adopts a policy to substitute "undocumented immigrants" for "illegal immigrants," they obscure a fact that many readers think is especially relevant, the legal status of the immigrants in question. While the latter term mayin some quarters be regarded as a less inflammatory description, one wonders why truth and accuracy ought to take back seat to some folks' delicate sensibilities.

The coming years may bring America much more political volatility. If that happens, we need to be clear about the spectrum of political actions that lie outside legislative processes. Obviously, we all ought to continue to support free speech and the right to free assembly. And we ought to continue to be VERY tolerant of civil disobedience. But at the point where civil disobedience crosses over from persuasion to violent criminal activity undertaken to intimidate, that's terrorism. We ought to draw the bright line right there.

I would never do anything so destructive or break the law myself, but I could care less if someone did.

I just had to chime in with two things. First of all, "I could care less" means that you do care more than you could. It bugs the crap out of my when people use that idiom. Second, if the ELF decide that they should also burn your house down, I will expect to hear your continued applause.