The Independent says "The FBI has sounded a new and surprising alarm, suggesting environmental and animal-welfare militants are now the biggest terrorist threat in the US, increasingly using incendiary devices on targets ranging from housing developments and research laboratories to car dealerships."

MSNBC says "Environmental and animal rights extremists who have turned to arson and explosives are the nation's top domestic terrorism threat, the FBI has told lawmakers."

However, CNN says "Violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation, top federal law enforcement officials said Wednesday."

That "one of the most serious" qualifier makes a huge difference in whether this is silly dribble or slanderous, lie-filled drivel.  If they say that so-called "eco-terrorists," which the cnn article mentions have never killed anyone, are the nation's "top threat," then we have an obvious lie on our hands and another case of "LOOK OVER THERE!"

However, if it says "one of the top," that may be an exaggeration, but it's not NEARLY as bad as saying "the top threat."

I went directly to the transcript on the FBI website, and here's what John E. Lewis actually said: "One of today's most serious domestic terrorism threats come from special interest extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign."

So, though this is a silly notion, it's nowhere near as bad as saying that ALF and ELF are worse threats than Al Queda. Also, it's a frightening notion, as mentioned in the commentary, that vandalism and "office takeovers" have been classified as "terrorism," in the same category as mass murder and flying planes into skyscrapers.

Thanks!
George

This is the kind of sloppy reporting that can be used to downplay the entire story of FBI monitoring environmental groups. The right loves to find some detail that is wrong in a story, attack it and make the rest of the story be forgotten.

We have all seen it before, the government inserts agents into non-violent protest movements.  The agent throws a rock, then the police state has an excuse to respond.

It's a mini rathergate, newsweek attack on media..in micro media, blog style.

Talking points and tactics.

Don't fall for it.  Keep on the non-violent course, resistance is more effective at social change than violence.  Eject these tendencies from your group, macro and micro.  They are a sign that the source of those tactics may not be what they claim to be.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

People tend to think that violent attacks are rare and only arise in extreme situations with very prominent people.  It is illogical to assume that this is true.  This exploitive system is highly efficient at warding off or neutralizing threats.  The most effective approach to managing a herd is to cull troublesome critters early before they achieve full growth.  Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why the leadership of the environmental movement is so pale and lackluster, why no charismatic leaders have surfaced since Judy Bary, why so much effort is expended with so few results and a net loss on every issue of concern, why the movement consumes more and more resources with fewer and fewer results?  This is not by accident nor is it any different than the experience of any other movement in recorded history that challenged the interests of concentrated wealth.  Witness the sad, pathetic condition of "organized" labor, for instance.  

Daniel Quinn addresses these problems in his book Beyond Civilization.  I know of no other thoughtful discussion of the central problem of adopting a reformist approach.  When people so consistently loose perhaps they are fighting the wrong battle.  Failure is not a moral issue, just a hint that the thinking may be flawed.

herb