« In Search of Wild Carrots ... Part 2 | Main | Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? »
May 20, 2005
MSNBC, Independent Misquote FBI On "Eco-Terrorists"
By:
Well, now, let's be reasonable here. Depending on what publication you get this story from, the information is different.
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.
Commentary on the pro-environment websites I frequent has already started flying, and it really sucks that though the government is obviously being overzealous here, people think they've said something they haven't. You can see some of these writings here, here, and here.
Posted by George at May 20, 2005 6:23 AM Category: Culture & Ideology
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.radnoesis.info/mt33/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1597
Comments
I would rather get hit with some fake blood over wearing a fur coat then be blown up by some jihadist for simply being a living American. I would rather see some SUVs spray painted than sarin nerve gas thrown into a school by one of osama's pals.
Posted by: goesh at May 20, 2005 8:41 AM
It is a bit frightening that they think that eco-terrorists are are biggest threat. Another version of "the enemy within" strategy.
Posted by: Rowan at May 20, 2005 9:59 AM
well, but they don't think that. At least, that's not what they said. They said "one of" the biggest threats.
Still, pretty ridiculous.
Posted by: george at May 20, 2005 10:09 AM
I don't know George, if you read what the government DID say, it reads with the same connotation, just "gentler" words. They specifically state that ONE OF the biggest inside threats in America are extremist environmental and animal rights organizations (and they list some), even when people have died from the bombs exploded by extreme RIGHT, or so-called "right to life" groups. Did they list these other far-right extremists? Neither Timothy McVey nor the Atlanta bomber were environmentalists or animal rights activists. I will follow the links to see if they provide any basis for this.
Maybe the government didn't use sensationalized verbage, but the meaning--and damage to the reputation of and public sentiment for legitimate environmental and animal rights groups could be substantial.
Posted by: Pamela at May 20, 2005 12:58 PM
Oh, I completely agree with you. It's ridiculous that these groups could even be put NEAR the top. However, the point of my writing this was originally to point out how weird it was that MSNBC and others were misquoting. The difference between "the top" and "one of the top" is pretty huge.
But, you're right in that these accusations are still wild.
Posted by: george at May 20, 2005 4:49 PM
And you, too, are correct in pointing out the misquoting aspect of the major news outlets. Journalism has morphed into some strange, sensationalized, commercial venture.
In fact, I think I see what you were saying now. You are pointing out how the government was relatively conservative (albeit still pointing a finger) in their initial conclusions, and how the medias blew the report even further out of focus to villify a certain group.
My apologies, I think I misunderstood your point originally.
Posted by: Pamela at May 20, 2005 11:15 PM