Today however, I saw the other said of the matter. And the view is quite different from the other side of the coin.
I discovered that members of these environmental "earth first" groups actually feel that those harming the earth are the eco-terrorists.
So each group, those pro-ecofriendly and those pro-capitalism are "eco-terrorists" to each other.
Are you confused yet?
And BOTH sides are using propaganda to support their views.
HERE is the link to an article that gives some insight into how the crowd that supports Earth First view "their fight".
I'm going to use a propaganda technique to try to simplify matters. I'll use "code" words to label each group. I'll use colors and try to use neutral ones.
For those people who support groups such as E.L.F., I'll label "tan" and for those who either attempt to stop these groups or are damaged by them, I'll label "ivory".
In the article; "tan" seems determined to do "whatever necessary" to meet their goals of a totally earth friendly environment. While "ivory" will send out to protests those who can help deter "tan's" plans. For example, send someone to safely remove a Tan who is chained to a tree. Ivory will use infiltration and other policing tactics to find out about potential plans to do damage.
However, it's seems that that the propaganda is escalating when it comes to "tan's" actions. Instead of being satisfied with the destruction of property and the large signs of warning, the tree sitting, and other more passive means of protest; they are now expanding to more physically threatening actions. Tan will actually not only threaten to go pay a "visit" to an Ivory's home. Tan so far, has not come right out and said they will harm an Ivory's loved one; but you can read the insinuation in the article. Scary stuff.
What kind of propaganda is this? Is it even propaganda any more? These actions are moving the technique of 'demonizing the opposition' to extremely dangerous levels. They are demonizing themselves in order to force a change in the other's policies.
The article also explains that many of these extreme groups were made to be "front groups". Simply to make the already so called radical groups -look reasonable. Here is a short excerpt from the article:
"Smithsonian magazine writes:
"We thought it would have been useful to have a group to take a tougher position than the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society," Foreman remembers. "It could be sort of secretly controlled by the mainstream and trotted out at hearings to make the Sierra Club or Wilderness Society look moderate."
So who really is an eco-terrorist? Those who are damaging the ecosystem with their building projects and pollution? Or those who damage the product of other humans in order to protect the earth?
Do the ends justify the means? Do two wrongs make a right?
Only you can decide for yourself where you stand.