Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - House fire may be "eco-terrorism"

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - House fire may be "eco-terrorism" (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/77944-house-fire-may-eco-terrorism.html)

House fire may be "eco-terrorism"

Linky

Quote:

FBI: House fires may be eco-terrorism
Dozen homes priced at more than $400,000 are destroyed
Monday, December 6, 2004 Posted: 5:36 PM EST (2236 GMT)

The fire destroyed a dozen homes in the Hunters Brooke development.

INDIAN HEAD, Maryland (AP) -- More than a dozen expensive homes under construction were burned down early Monday in a suburban Washington housing development that had been criticized by environmentalists because it is next to a nature preserve, officials said.

An FBI agent said the fires may have been set by environmental extremists.

A dozen homes were destroyed and 29 others damaged near the state's Mattawoman Natural Environment Area. No injuries were reported. The damage was estimated at at least $10 million.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Faron Taylor, a deputy state fire marshal, said investigators believe fires were set in at least four of the homes, which were priced at $400,000 to $500,000. Taylor refused to say what led investigators to conclude it was arson.

"At this point, our knowledge of the methodology is shared by us and the perpetrator, and we don't want to share that with anyone else," Taylor said.

A Sierra Club report had called the development "quintessential sprawl" because it is far from existing infrastructure and "threatens a fragile wetland and important historical sites near the Chesapeake Bay."

After the fires, the Sierra Club issued a statement saying it "strongly condemns all acts of violence in the name of the environment."

FBI spokesman Barry Maddox said FBI agents were on the scene and would investigate whether the fires were an act of ecoterrorism.

"Anything and everything will be considered, but we're not labeling this anything other than suspicious fires," Maddox said.

The blazes were reported before 5 a.m., drawing firefighters from four counties to the subdivision about 25 miles south of the nation's capital. The houses, on lots of about a quarter-acre each, were spread across a 10-acre area, Taylor said.

"This was a very, very affluent neighborhood under construction," Taylor said.

Taylor said the fire would be investigated by agents from the Maryland fire marshal's office and the federal Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is routinely brought in to help investigate large fires.

So, I'm kinda curious about just how far does the government go to label extremist as "terrorist". Last time I checked, nobody is living in fear as a result of this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

Linky

So, I'm kinda curious about just how far does the government go to label extremist as "terrorist". Last time I checked, nobody is living in fear as a result of this...

If I was a home buyer in the area.. I'd be fearful that someone would be burning down the house that I was intending on purchasing. There's lots of things that go into coordinating buying a home and one of them is the timing of selling home A, buying home B, and moving out of A and into B.

If I had to wait another 6 months to wait for investigations and rebuilds... that's going to cost some money from rising housing costs to the rising interest rates. When my contractor was delaying week after week, it got costly to rent/stay in one place and pay for a mortgage on another.

Terror for you it may not be, but I recall after buying our most recent property wondering how I would pay for it all if something happened to my spouse...

The more the word is bandied about the more accepting of hearing it people will be. Hence less outcry when money is needed for fighting so-called terrorism. (read: domestic civilians)

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

So, I'm kinda curious about just how far does the government go to label extremist as "terrorist". Last time I checked, nobody is living in fear as a result of this...

This terminology is not new from this govenrment. It was certainly in use in 1988, when Neil Stephenson wrote Zodiac, and probably has a decade or so before that. I can't find a derivation yet... no wait, this could help.

"Ecoterrorism, or the eco-terrorist movement, first appeared in England during the 1970s and spread to the United States in the 1980s."

Good idea, burn thousands of pounds of pressure-treated wood, paint, tar roofing, electrical wires, and all that stuff in the houses, all to save the environment. Someone needs to rethink their plan.

I'm sure the local residents are living in fear over this. No fucking excuse for this and it IS a form of terrorism.

Seems like a pretty accurate use of the terrorist tag to me. And I hope they find, and throw the book at, the offenders.

Firstly, destuctive activity like this has been proven NOT to do anything positive, so the act itself, other than being destructive, is also counter-productive at the same time.

Secondly, the negative environmental impacts of these fires, as has already been intoned, makes me wonder if these people really have a clue about a long range plan. If they do not, maybe they are just lashing out, which makes them either not smart enough to listen to, or too excited to listen to, Either way, I can't listen to them.

Thirdly, they are not terrorists, they are arsonists. You can call them names if you want, and you can hope that bad things happen to them, and you can try to help get the full weight of the legal process in your jureisdiction to be laid upon them. In the face of the ridiculous acts that created a real danger to life, all of these reactions are acceptable. However, to call them terorists is to call a hang-nail "life-altering" or a hole in the sidewalk as "life-threatening."

The word terrorist is the American word du jour because the sheer horror of 9/11 has put that word into the consciousness. But to use the word whenever someone lashes out is totally inappropriate, and absolutely innaccurate. Leave the extreme words for the extremists, and try to understand and accept the english language without watering it down with inapproriate pathos.

Peace,

Pierre

Quote:

Originally Posted by vox_rox

The word terrorist is the American word du jour because the sheer horror of 9/11 has put that word into the consciousness. But to use the word whenever someone lashes out is totally inappropriate, and absolutely innaccurate. Leave the extreme words for the extremists, and try to understand and accept the english language without watering it down with inapproriate pathos.

See my link above; the term ecoterrorist is at least 25 years old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Good idea, burn thousands of pounds of pressure-treated wood, paint, tar roofing, electrical wires, and all that stuff in the houses, all to save the environment. Someone needs to rethink their plan.

They would never burn houses down if they actually cared about the environment; their real beef is with capitalism. That's why they like to burn and vandalize SUVs too, even though old cars are considerably worse for the environment. But rich people don't drive them, so they escape the ire of these lunatics.

I used to know the head of a local Sierra Club chapter. He drove an old beat-up minivan that leaked and burned two quarts of oil PER WEEK. Evidently he didn't consider the environment important enough to warrant engine repairs or riding a bike around town. But he sure liked to freak out on me if I threw a soda can in the trash instead of a recycling bin. :rolleyes:

I hope the developers take the insurance money and invest it in rebuilding twice as many houses on lots that are twice the size.

Quote:

Thirdly, they are not terrorists, they are arsonists. You can call them names if you want, and you can hope that bad things happen to them, and you can try to help get the full weight of the legal process in your jureisdiction to be laid upon them. In the face of the ridiculous acts that created a real danger to life, all of these reactions are acceptable. However, to call them terorists is to call a hang-nail "life-altering" or a hole in the sidewalk as "life-threatening."

Couldn't say it better myself, so I won't try. :thumbsup:

Is "eco-terrorism" a crime, or would they strictly be charged for arson? I sure hope it's the latter. As ridiculous as their intent is and as much as I hate enviro-nazis, it's still arson.

It's funny how most people who would have no problem giving them a harsher punishment for eco-terrorism as opposed to regular arson would probably freak out if somebody was charged with a "hate crime" for beating up someone who happened to be black or gay. And, of course, vice-versa.

Personally, I think that people should be punished according to the crime they committed. Not according to opinions that they may or may not have about blacks, gays, the environment, etc., which may or may not have led to them committing said crime. It's way too subjective, and sets a dangerous precedent.

That article doesn't say anything more than a few houses were set on fire and the arsonist(s) are believed to have done so because of where the houses were built. How does a fire and some speculation grow into eco-terrorism? Nothing has been confirmed and this entire article is nothing more than FUD in it's purest form and spread of a large scale.

This article is rediculous - enviornmentalists everywhere go to great lengths to bring their point across on a daily basis and the only time it's given some attention is when a few extremists morons go to overboard and the entire incident is tied to terror.

...

I vote ECO-TERRORISM (if it was in fact environmental morons that performed the deed).

ter·ror·ism

NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Only a twisted mind could justify an action such as this.

Edit: Bold and colored = bad.

Read more...

linky

As long as it was a person or organized group like ELF that did this, the only explanation is terrorism. I can't really imagine why you would think it is not. These people were making a statement, and tried to further their agenda by burning a bunch of homes. Now the insurance companies are going to have pay for the houses, causing rates to go up in the area. They'll have to cut down even more trees to rebuild the houses, likely in the same spot as before.

It just goes to show that these groups actually care nothing about the environment. I just wonder where there true motivation lies...

Extreme environmentalist groups like this have been on FBI watch lists for years. They haven't been targeted recently because the Fibbies only recently have been allowed to do so. Pure and simple, this is terrorism.

If my house catches on fire and they pull some kind of "eco-terrorist" crap and don't give me what's due, someone *will* die.

I'm 100% serious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

Mmm, beat me to it.

Yes, the terrorism label fits.

The "government" never mentions terrorism in that article; it's entirely spin by the reporter. At most you could say the FBI mentions the possibility of "environmental extremists," but I'm hard pressed to see how people can assume the government is treating potential suspects like terrorists just yet.

Ask the contracter that put his ass on line to pay for the raw materials, and all the blue collar laborers that will be laid off when the company goes under whether or not this is terrorism. My family owns a construction company that was started almost 100 years ago by my great-grandfather. My grandfather and now my father have both ran it, and as anyone that runs their own business (my father is a civil engineer and mba) this type of thing could very well ruin many families. We have guys that have been working for us for over 25 years and are damned good at what they do. One of the family traditions is having the kids spend a few summers working in field as the low man on the totem pole to see how the family money is made and I learned a lot more from those guys then I have from some of my college classes. The amount of money, time, and sweat these idiots wasted so they could live out their adolescent fantasies about 'sticking it to the man' is disgusting. Their actions hurt a lot more than some nameless corporation. This complete eco-freedom stuff is complete bullshit, these people value their twisted view of nature over human life and welfare.

And I'm a conservationist, NOT an environmentalist.

Perhaps it isn't ecoterrorism. Perhaps it is... Chevy Cavalier backroad racers? WTF?

Quote:

Five men have been indicted on federal charges in connection with fires that destroyed or damaged 26 homes in a new housing subdivision last month in the most expensive case of residential arson in the state's history, officials announced today.

The United States attorney for Maryland, Allen F. Loucks, said the men were charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson and aiding and abetting arson. The fire was considered a federal crime because it interfered with the interstate activities of the subdivision's developer, the Lennar Corporation of Miami, and its business partners, officials said.

Advertisement

The arson and conspiracy charges both carry mandatory minimum federal penalties of 5 to 20 years in prison, officials said.

At a press conference this afternoon, Mr. Loucks said the investigation was continuing and might lead to more charges. One other man has been arrested in connection with the fire, and the indictment said the conspiracy, which it dated to Aug. 1, included other persons "known and unknown."

The Dec. 6 fire destroyed 10 homes and damaged 16 others in the Hunters Brooke subdivision in Indian Head, a rural area of Charles County, near the Potomac River, south of Washington. Prosecutors estimated the damage at $10 million. None of the houses that were burned, which were in various states of completion, were occupied, and no one was injured. Prosecutors said the men had tried to set fire to 19 other empty homes as well.

Mr. Foulk and others who spoke at a press conference today shed no light on a possible motive for the blaze.

"What I have no idea is, what it's about," the Charles County sheriff, Frederick E. Davis, said. "You have crimes where you never figure out what the motive is."

Kevin Perkins, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Baltimore office, agreed that "what we continue to look at is the why."

Because the development had drawn opposition over its potential impact on wetlands, investigators initially wondered if the attack might have been the work of a radical environmental work. But less than two weeks after the fire, the authorities arrested a security guard at the complex. After that, a string of five more arrests was accompanied by glimpses of a more tangled set of motivations.

Investigators said the guard, Aaron L. Speed, 21, had been upset with the security company he worked for, Security Services of America, for showing "indifference" after the death of his infant son, according to a court affidavit filed earlier. Another defendant, Jeremy D. Parady, 20, was said to have been angry over being turned down for a job at the subdivision by its developer, the Lennar Corporation of Miami. Mr. Parady is a member of the volunteer fire department in the nearby town of Accokeek.

The other men charged in the new indictment were Patrick S. Walsh, 20, Michael M. Everhart, 20 and Roy T. McCann, 22, all residents of the area.

The man who has been charged in the case but who was not included in the indictment, Michael E. Gilbert, told investigators in December that the fire had been planned as a way of gaining notoriety for a gang to which several of the defendants belonged. An affidavit said the gang is known as the Family or the Unseen Cavaliers, a reference to Chevrolet Cavaliers and the group's interest in racing autos on the area's back roads.

Mr. Gilbert told investigators that Mr. Walsh had approached him in November with a plan to "make the Family bigger and more famous" by "setting 'something' on fire," according to an affidavit.

Last month, a prosecutor suggested that race could have been a motive for the fires, noting that many of the homebuyers in Hunters Brooke are black. Investigators also said that two of the suspects, all of whom are white, had made racial statements during their questioning.

But the indictment made no mention of bias, and Mr. Loucks declined to comment beyond saying that race was "another aspect that we're still investigating."

The New York Times > National > Maryland Indicts 5 in Fire That Swept 26 New Homes

So is it "environmentalists" (so called eco-terrorists) or is it gangs that did this? Would these kids be charged with terrorism or just arson or a hate crime?

Damn, this whole thing is getting more confusing...

Quote:

I know I'm coming late, but thank you for hitting this out early. Bush is amazing, he gets credit for ANYTHING these days.