Slashdot Mirror
'Eco-Anarchists' Targeting Nuclear and Nanotech Workers
scibri writes, quoting Nature: "A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists. A group calling itself the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has claimed responsibility for the non-fatal shooting of a nuclear-engineering executive on 7 May in Genoa. The same group sent a letter bomb to a Swiss pro-nuclear lobby group in 2011; attempted to bomb IBM's nanotechnology laboratory in Switzerland in 2010; and has ties with a group responsible for at least four bomb attacks on nanotechnology facilities in Mexico. Another branch of the group attacked railway signals in Bristol, UK, last week in an attempt to disrupt employees of nearby defense technology firms (no word on whether anyone noticed the difference between an anarchist attack and a normal Wednesday on the UK's railways). A report by Swiss intelligence says such loosely affiliated groups are increasingly working together."
That bombs and guns are a product of science? Or is that part of their message - to destroy science with science? Fucking assholes.
At this point I wouldn't be that sure that they are actually anarchists, Italian state has a long and well established history of blowing up their own citizens and blaming the anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension#Piazza_Fontana_bombing). Anarchist generally dropped 'individual terror' somewhere in the early 20th century as it failed to bring any actual change or a revolution, so even anarchist or anarchist terrorist groups do everything to ensure there will be no casualties of their attacks. Greek groups like CCF, US and UK's ALF and ELF never killed or aimed to harm anybody AFAIK.
Italy on the other hand has this terrorist group always popping up around serious political issues, called nearly the same as the Anarchist Federation of Italy (IAF)... While most anarchist groups would do everything they can to distinguish themselves from other groups (think "Life of Brian"). Just saying.
So we need a smart-ray to increase the average IQ ;P
I'm thinking more along the line of a clue stick. Preferably with a nail in it, so they get the point.
I would bet that the group is filled with not terribly tech-savvy people which means they're definitely going to get caught very quickly.
The author of "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" spends a few pages at the start of the essay stressing that he just means paranoid Style, not clinical paranoia, and that it is hardly limited to America, but has cropped up all over the world.
Well, it sure seems to be alive and well in Switzerland and Mexico, to name two places that have suffered these attacks. The rhetoric in the Mexican note, about nanotech, from the "ITS" ("Individuals Tending to Savagery", at least they're honest) rings with your standard conspiracy-theory stuff about it ending the world. The anti-nuclear rhetoric in the other is similar towards nuclear armageddon, with the deaths from the "European Fukushima" just around the corner. (Amazing how France has avoided them for 40 years of 77% nuke power generation).
From the original "paranoid style" essay:
"The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization . . . he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish." ...that pretty neatly explains how they can go around blowing up engineers and professors. Since the "paranoid style" essay has become popular again lately because it also jogs memories of some Tea Party fears about Obama taking away all guns or rounding up Christians into camps or whatever, it's worth noting that this is where that kind of thinking eventually takes you if pursued to a logical conclusion. The author also stresses that the "paranoid style" is not a left or right thing, but found on both sides.
What I want to know is how people deal with the cognitive dissonance of their (presumed) conviction that they're doing good, in the context of the methods that they're employing? Isn't there ever a moment of "Holy shit, my quest to make the world a better, more natural place is now manifest in me doing things like shooting nuns and throwing acid in infants' faces. I think I'd better go back to my hometown and spend a few weeks crying hysterically in the shower."
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
It's a great co-incidence that they decided to name it Olga like my ex-wife. Fitting name, really. Wonder if they will fail just as badly.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is it just me that finds the 'label' Eco-Anarchist' to be as blatant of an oxymoron as 'politically correct', 'Patriot Act', and 'military intelligence'?
I guess 'weasel wording' is the new trend....:-(
Eco-Anarchist......Hmmm...anarchy to the ecosystem?!?!?...does not make sense in the context of their stated goals.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Yes, we tried to organise a small anarchist community a few years ago... but people wouldn't follow the rules.
(Thank you, I'll be here all week)
FGD 135
Anarchists stand for obolition of governments, these retards are simply ludite/eco terrorists. I say kill them all, kill all ludites and eco tree huggers. The world would be a better place.
Yes. Let's just make it a rule to kill everyone who don't share our views. That would certainly make the world a much better place.
It is sad that we have so many people thinking they have profound understanding of things they actually know nothing about. It is actually slightly true that all things have a negative aspect but in the case of nano tech and nuclear power they can both do far more good than any harm likely to flow from them. A simple example if we had no nuclear power plants we would have far more coal power plants. The use of coal murders people in large numbers. Take a look at W. Virginia's official sites about fishing. One meal a year is the maximum of fish allowed in a diet in many streams and lakes while the rest is one meal every six months. In essence there is no place in W. Va. that coal has not loaded with mercury and lead to the extent that all surface water is now toxic.
/soapbox/ when you send mail bombs and make assassination attempts you're a fucking terrorist. this whole pussy-footing around the label is horse shit. Calling a terrorist an 'anarchist' because you don't want to use the word terrorist is as horse-shit as saying only white people can be a racist and is right up there with calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant. Whats next? Calling drug dealers unlicensed pharmacists? Piss or get off the pot.. they're fucking terrorists. Anarchists reject organized authority and prefer mass chaos. An 'Eco-Anarchist' would be someone who would want to screw up the planet, not assassinate people to 'save' it from the big bad corporation or science. Calling them anything other than terrorists is a complete disservice to anarchists. I know a few anarchists and theyre hardly sending letter bombs and trying to assassinate people. They simply think that if we got rid of all the laws on the books people would step up and whip the shit out of their neighbors that get out of line and the problems would solve themselves. These eco-assholes are just terrorists of opportunity /endSoapbox/
Eco-anarchists have been terrorists for decades. Spiking trees, ever seen what a chainsaw chain can do when it hits one? People can be and have been killed by them.
FUNNY STORY TIME! Well no not so funny story time, okay so back in the early 2000's I was working at a lumber mill here in Canada. We got in a shipment of raw-cut(stuff that hadn't been debarked) from a tree farm, this stuff was being cut for a cabin for a customer who was going to debark, trim and chamfer his own logs. Just wanted rough-cut to save him some time. So we loaded the logs up in the machine to do the cuts and hit nails about 15% in. Shattering the blades(we used a double cut system), one blade segment went right through the control booth. The other blade shattered and parts hit another guy(the cullboy under the machine -- cullboys are the grunts who take the segments off that aren't used but are cut into smaller stock) who nearly bled to death while we were waiting for EMS to show up. Yeah fuck em.
Let's not forget, burning down homes? "Animal liberation" groups, for you know things like diabetic and cancer research. And of course we can always go on.
Om, nomnomnom...
Eco-anarchists have been terrorists for decades. Spiking trees, ever seen what a chainsaw chain can do when it hits one? People can be and have been killed by them.
Tree spiking is a despicable and dangerous tactic, but it hasn't killed any one (yet). The only injury from tree spiking was a mill worker named George Alexander back in 1987. He was seriously hurt but not killed.
I'm against tree spiking too, but let's protest with facts instead of emotional-charged exaggerations.
Incest has genetic risks. It actually has a downside. Although in at least some places you can have an incestuous marriage if you don't have kids.
Polygamy and polyandry also lead to societal disruptions. Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities. Poly* marriages that don't involve religious and other craziness probably should be allowed. When you guys can figure out homosexual marriage you can start working on that one.
Polygamous Mormons make a habit of ditching the excess boys on the streets of nearby cities.
I'm afraid that Mormons haven't been polygamist since the late 1800s (when the US outlawed the practice.) I'm thinking you are referring to the splinter group that split off from the larger Church back then and refused to obey the law. They are collectively known as the FLDS Church and do not use the name Mormon.
The ones around here give the sons a $1000 when kicking them out. The real problem is the lack of choice for the 14 year old brides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The genetic risks that you mention that are associated with incest are not as high as society would have you think. This link mentions that if we should pass laws governing sex based on genetic risk, then we should disallow sexual intercourse between the elderly, between those with common traits for genetic diseases, as well as between genetically similar groups (for example, between Ashkenazi Jews or Safardic Jews). And why not make genetic screening before having children mandatory while we're at it?
I believe that incest, homosexuality, and polygamy all suffer a stigma brought on by the bible and that the laws were written because of this stigma, and not for any rational reason. Yes, it would be better for society as a whole if certain people didn't have children, but do we really want the government to tell us who those people are?
Even if one were to say that we want the government to control who can have children and who can not, I would like to point out that in today's day and age, sexual intercourse does not have to have a significant chance of impregnation and therefore should not be outlawed under any consensual circumstance.
The blurb starts with "A loose coalition of eco-anarchist groups is increasingly launching violent attacks on scientists." But then one of the links is to Raytheon. By and large Raytheon does not have scientists working for it studying black holes and the like. It has engineers, and those engineers are designing missiles, to be used in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and so forth. I see mention that eco-anarchists are launching violent attacks when they shut down train tracks, not much mention that engineers at Raytheon are involved in violent attacks all over the world.
Also the "nuclear engineering" executive mentioned in the blurb was working at Finmeccanica, another merchant in the death trade. He's an executive at another company in the death trade. Not a scientist, not even an engineer. Yet Nature headlines the article "Anarchists attack science".
There has been bombing, executions and sabotages against Iran's nuclear program. A nuclear power program which at one time the US establishment whole-heartedly endorsed. Why the hue and cry about an attack on a nuclear executive in Italy, which is an "attack on science", but not a word about this. Isn't shooting nuclear scientists in Iran an "attack on science"? Where are the articles on Slashdot, Nature and so forth bemoaning this?
It's just simple propaganda. An executive making money on explosives killing people is himself attacked. So the lie must come into play, it is an attack on science. Disrupting Raytheon's blood profits by shutting down railroads for a day are a violent attack on scientists.
From a moral standpoint, I have no problem with what these bombers and gunmen are doing. At best it would be justified, at worst it is simply eye-for-an-eye, tit-for-tat - one band of killers attacking another band of killers. I feel more secure that people are out there attacking Raytheon, Finmeccanica etc. executives than not. So mark that down, NSA listeners who are now monitoring domestically due to the Patriot Act.
While I feel it's certainly morally justified, or at least equivalent, from a tactical and strategic standpoint I don't see this as a necessary thing for the average American to do. There's plenty of legitimate and legal work that can be done - organization, education and the like, which is ultimately more effective. Even at Reagan's height HE was the one who had to go underground to fund Contras, not the domestic opposition to him. With elections, the first amendment, right to assemble and so forth still intact, I can't see much tactical or strategic reason for an American to do this sort of thing in the US. In Italy, with its history ( P2, Gladio, elections fixed by foreign powers) it may make more sense, I don't know the situation on the ground there as well. The people who lit bombs in the 1960s like Bill Ayers, Diana Oughton etc. were generally children of the wealthy, working class activists like the Black Panthers and other organizations were not at that level of militancy, they felt free breakfast programs and organization and education was the important thing.
These are luddite terrorists not anarchists. You can be an anarchist and not hate scientists. Their anti-science position has nothing to do with anarchism in the political sense of the word.
I'd outlaw sexual intercourse for Rick Santorum, until he stops trying to legislate everyone else's sexual practices.
These people in the Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front are just delusional idiots.
-- At least compared to the International Revolutionary Front of Anarchist Federations who really hate all these imperialist scientists (excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture).
Your link is kind of suspect - the big headline at the top of the page isn't supported by any of the quotes.
Having kids with a close relative DOES increase that child's risk of genetic diseases. As for mere sex with a relative, laws against that vary quite a bit, from not illegal at all to punishable by life in prison. Yes, some places are more backward in that regard than others. I'm not sure you can blame the bible for it though - there's plenty of incest in the bible.
And that's why not everyone is homosexual. There are lots of species of which a significant number are homosexual. That means there must be a benefit of some kind to homosexuality, so the truth is likely the exact opposite of what you said.
What are the ethics of tree spiking and then telling everyone that you've done it? I'd say that takes it from the ethical category of "someone could get hurt" down to "property damage".
The Bible was not originally written in English and all Englsh translations should be take with a grain of salt.
Translation in an absolute sense is of course not possible, especially between two languages as different as English and Classical Hebrew. People often naively assume that two separate words in Hebrew will isomorphically map to two distinct English words, eg, HRG to kill and RTsCh to murder. It isn't that easy.
It's "thou shalt not MURDER"
Not necessarily, no. Had you bothered actually to read the page you cite all the way to the end you would have found the author arguing something very different, namely: tempting though it might be to translate RTsCh as 'murder' ...
As usual careful study teaches us that what initially appeared ridiculously obvious is really much more complex than it seemed at first glance.
Indeed ...
[W]e may appreciate that the translation "thou shalt not kill" was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.
The real problem here, IMHO, is a desire to shoehorn the meaning of Hebrew words into a translation that will conveniently eliminate the apparent logical inconsistencies as to when the Tanakh proscribes and prescribes killing. But the Bible is not book, it's a library (and even each 'book' of the OT is not necessarily a book). Searching for logical consistency across an entire library is likely to be a thankless endeavour.
No, the sons are the bigger problem. In a country where polygamy is normal most of the men can't have a girlfriend/wife/kids. This leads to horrible social problems (murder/rape/terrorism). You'll never calm the middle east till you ban polygamy. The middle east is exporting terrorism to the USA so I think it's a bigger issue to Americans than a small number of girls.
There is video footage of the "masked black-clad men" you describe from a summit meeting in Montebello Quebec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1nHvvkzvA
They were later admitted to have been police, but nothing was done about it.
Eco-anarchists have been terrorists for decades. Spiking trees, ever seen what a chainsaw chain can do when it hits one? People can be and have been killed by them.
Having hit various chunks of metal in trees including a piece of 1/2 in steel pipe that had been hammered into a tree 30 ft up years before, presumably to hang a clothes line from, I'm well aware that hitting something means having to do a bunch of filing to get the chain sharp again. A hassle but with so much wood coming from populated areas you have to expect nails, wire, bullets (harmless but common) and even chunks of pipe in timber. It's one of the reasons that a chainsaw operator should be trained how to hold a saw, if it kicks, you don't want to lose control.
Shits about the saw hitting something and the kid getting hurt but the logging industry is a dangerous industry. People get killed, sometimes in weird ways where there is no blame and often through complacency. When I first started working in the bush, WCB had all kinds of real examples of injuries that happened, often through stupidity. Things like being rushed and not shielding the saws in the mill and sending some poor kid under a machine without proper shields or when the machine was running.
Sadly by 2000 the government was in cutback mode and things like safety training and inspections were too expensive so people get injured and die but at least someone makes a profit and the government can balance its budget while cutting taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
No. That is a too simple view of evolution and genetics. Something being common does not necessary show that something is beneficial for survival. Look at e.g.: Sickle-cell disease(SCD). Very common in Sub-Saharan Africa, but not helpful for survival. SCD happens in individuals with two copies of the gene, while one copy of the gene makes individuals more resistant to malaria. Genes can often have multiple effects, some beneficial, some not.
So it is possible that homosexuality is beneficial for survival but it could also be just a side effect of something that is actually beneficial.
There are lots of species of which a significant number are homosexual.
This is also problematic reasoning. There are also significant numbers of species(ants,...) where most individuals are infertile. But that sure does not mean that mass infertility would be beneficial for humans, too. Whether something is beneficial or not most often also depends on other traits and the environment of species.
Jan
Because we're talking about attacks of Nanotech and Nuclear workers, and you've just derailed a derailed Star War's meme joke with this Culture War bullshit.
Honestly, can we go three stories without some American Cult-War/Political derailing in the first thread. Can the mods please apply the "Offtopic" option instead of giving an "Interesting" rating to every random brain-fart?
And could people at least attempt to re-rail derailed threads back to the topic. For example: "Yeah Eco-anarchists. basically jerks who think their own views and options are more important than all other topics, and who will inject themselves drastically into even completely unrelated matters just to gain attention for their cause." So, let's get back to the topic.
May the Maths Be with you!