Via Press release (Eurekalert)
Report from START: Discovery Networks Hostage-Taking a Rare Terror Event
U.S. Violent Terror Rarely Against Media, Capital; Rare for Environmentalists
COLLEGE PARK, Md. – A new report by terrorism researchers at the University of Maryland concludes that the deadly hostage-taking incident at the Discovery Communications headquarters in suburban Washington, D.C. meets the criteria of a terrorist act – a rare one for media organizations and the nation’s capital region. Hostage-taking, though, is a familiar pattern in capital-region terror, the researchers add.
The report from the University of Maryland’s START Center – the federally funded National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism – also finds that there has never been any environmentally inspired suicide eco-terrorism in the United States, and probably the world, but draws no conclusions about whether that’s what occurred in this case.
START maintains the world’s most comprehensive unclassified database of terrorism incidents, and is designed to make it useful to scientists and policy-makers seeking to understand the behavior of terrorists and terror organizations. The report is based on an analysis of this data.
“The use of violence by radical environmentalists is extremely rare, and usually the target is property not people,” says Gary LaFree, who directs the University of Maryland START Consortium and its Global Terrorism Database. “We’ll count this incident as terrorism – the perpetrator has a history of politically inspired activism and his tactics were violent.”
START researchers analyzed the following information in the Global Terrorism Database, which includes more than 85,000 incidents worldwide since 1970:
|
TOP FINDINGS GLOBAL TERRORISM DATABASE The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) is an open-source database including information on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2008 (with annual updates planned for the future). Unlike many other event databases, the GTD includes systematic data on domestic as well as international terrorist attacks and now includes more than 87,000 cases. For each GTD incident, information is available on the date and location of the incident, the weapons used and nature of the target, the number of casualties, and – when identifiable – the group or individual responsible. The full dataset can be downloaded through the “Contact” section of the website at http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/. START CONSORTIUM The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) is a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence based at the University of Maryland. START uses state-of-the-art theories, methods, and data from the social and behavioral sciences to improve understanding of the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological impacts of terrorism. Additional information on START is available at: http://www.start.umd.edu. |
The full report is available onlineDiscover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It might help me change my mind if you could say what it is that is “nasty” ? Or is it so obvious that if I need to ask then I’ve no hope of understanding?
I accept he was mentally ill. But if I accept that, does that mean we dismiss people who set fire to university buildings as simply “mentally ill” ? (I’m referring to animal liberation front protesters). By labelling them as mentally ill, are we robbing them of their voice as protesters?
Where do you draw the line — serious question — between direct action and mental illness?
By quickly labelling this guy mentally ill, are you inviting that label onto many other protesters who take actions which ordinary people find out of the ordinary?
A person takes extreme action to get attention in a world that won’t listen, only to be ignored and swept away by being labelled just a mental illness?
I’m not trying to be mean, but it is hard question. Answer the hard question, and help me see your point of view, please.
At what point does direct action become mental illness? Is it that he put people’s lives in danger? That he put himself in danger? That he believed the message quite literally and logically? You intuit he was mentally ill, but can you say more clearly what it is that you are intuiting?
Sea Shepherd use terror tactics all the time.
—————-
dT,
Is a terrorist like Mr. Lee who was motivated by environmentalism a sociopath? Maybe or maybe not. I think he is.
One of his beliefs, out of the wild mix of mainstream ideological beliefs that Mr. Lee referenced, was dangerous GW caused by man. So, it was Mr. Lee himself who introduced us to the idea that this was about climate, at least in part. Mr. Lee linked himself to it. We didn’t, we just took his word.
I have no sympathies for any terrorist on principle. I have sympathies for his directly intended victims, for his family and friends/associates.
John
James Jay Lee: the face of environmentalism. Is it any surprise. At the root of the movement is irrational fear. We’re not dealing with reason, folks.
Is this just another case of someone trying to justify their grant money?
All acts of violence can be deemed acts of terror. Not all acts of terror can be deemed acts of terrorism. Surely many motives can be ascribed to political ends in all manner of crimes?
Americans have never known terrorism bar two serious acts yet now seem desperate to see terrorism in everything and everyone.
just see it for what it is. A sadly disturbed individual with an axe to grind who was probably failed by the medical system.
It nice to know that the Nobel Peace prize, that was given to Al Gore and the IPCC gang in 2007, had it’s intended effect on this individual…
RW: September 2, 2010 at 11:38 pm
I’m appalled that you are continuing to use the sad life and untimely death of a horribly ill person in this nasty way. Shame on you.
According to the information we have, he didn’t have a sad life until *after* he he was fed the AGW alarmist Kool-Aid, he chose the manner of his own death, and you’re only assuming he was “horribly ill.” And if you think merely writing about what occurred and the backstory for it is nasty, this must be your first experience with the internet — my condolences on the loss of your innocence…
I understand the opinion that this thread should be closed, that the actions of Mr. Lee had nothing to do with environmentalism, that his acts were those of a sick individual. I understand — but I disagree, and here is why.
It is foolish and unethical to disassociate a cause from the rhetoric used by those who support that cause. When Dr. Hansen equates trains carrying coal to trains carrying victims of genocide, he implicitly justifies the idea that actions against coal trains are (at least in a sense) equivalent to actions against genocide. Would a reasonable person be justified in using violence to save victims from genocide? Most people would say yes. They have made a parallel between CO2 production and murder and someone has acted on the belief that stopping CO2 is parallel with stopping murder. We may argue about how strong the link and how clear the responsibility those who demagogue for CAGW have for Mr. Lee’s actions, but pretending that they have no responsibility at all is a lie.
The definition of “terrorist” depends greatly on who is doing the defining. To the tree huggers, anybody who takes a chainsaw to a tree is a “terrorist” and they view themselves as the heroes and/or victims. Greenpeace view themselves as martyrs-in-waiting when they attack a “terrorist” whaling ship.
The old “one man’s terrorist is another mans freedom fighter” pertains to this.
It’s a pointless argument that simply disguises the truth, which is the everlasting lethal game of “King of the Hill”. Reasons are irrelevant – except as tools to be used to become the King or remain so.
RW says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:38 pm
I’m appalled that you are continuing to use the sad life and untimely death of a horribly ill person in this nasty way. Shame on you.
_________________________________________________
This affects all of us. If Cap and Trade does not past in the lame duck session after November I doubt this will be the only incident.
Remember the Greenpeace threat?
“Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
“If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”
Remember the bomb that injured a woman? http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7928778
As this article states:
“Environmentally motivated attacks almost always have no casualties but have caused tens of millions of dollars in property damage.”
Lee is not an isolated incident he is just a new twist and the criminal behavior that will soon may escalate. Some of the people posting at this website maybe targets just like the woman in the bombing incident.
If you want to talk about “use the sad life and untimely death of a horribly ill person in this nasty way” aim your disgust at Al Gore and others who KNOWINGLY have been using children and the mentally unstable to push their get rich quick schemes.
There is a terrorist streak to the whole thing.
The tree spikers.
Those idiots who harrass the Japanese Whalers ( I am not in favor of whaling, but…)
The house burnings and car lot fires.
And of course the overheated dooomy rhetoric, that inspires nuts to take arms.
The “other terrorists” that have been attacking us for some time also get freelance nuts
to snap and do crazy things based on their scare stories and lies.
They also want to to kill or “retire” western Civ. and return us to the idyillic utopia of 600 years ago.
They also rail against technology while using it to push their message .
Starting to look very similar.
H.R. says:
September 3, 2010 at 2:30 am
Andrew W says:
September 2, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Can you have terrorism without a terrorist organization? Does one person qualify as a terrorist organization?”
At least the organization chart is easy to follow, unlike the typical multinational, multi-divisional organizations. Very short chain of command, eh?
____________________________________________________
AHHHHhh, but does anyone know if Lee was a member of Greenpeace or WWF???
Stefan says: September 3, 2010 at 3:01 am
“… but what actually worries is the feeling that there hasn’t been enough public condemnation of those acts by supposed moderates.”
This is a point many have made over the last decade. IMHO this should not surprise anyone. Moderates tend by their nature toward inactivity. Otherwise they would not be moderates. They would be activists. But moderates it seems to me generally need to be in a position to moderate “between” two opposing forces to have any influence. In the example Stefan presents, there seems to be only one extreme and a middle.
Hıs manıfesto saıd …..
Quote:
Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.
He should have protested at the Greenpeace offıces ınstead. Thge last tıme I enquıred, they replıed.. ‘we have never campaıgned on populatıon ıssues, and never wıll.’
So, whıle populatıon ıs the bıggest threat to the envıronemnt, Greenpeace refuses to even dıscuss the problem.
Government BioFuel programs have starved millions in the name of AGW, how soon we forget. The subsidies will be renewed and the costs of corn will be inflated to satisfy AGW beliefs. Governments world wide push AGW and raise the cost of energy harming individual people. It hurts the lower income people the most!
I think the IPCC fits the definition of a terrorist organization even without the actions of loners like this guy. Do the IPCC and their contributors intimidate? I think it’s clear they do plenty of bullying so only their view gets “peer reviewed.” Do the IPCC and their contributors use violence? Global environmental taxes wouldn’t be voluntary. They’d be mandatory. If governments require payment, they require it under the threat of force; aka violence. Do the IPCC and their contributors deal in fear and terror?
Well, let’s see:
“Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming.”
“All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”
“So instead, we’re ending up with these grotesque affronts massive heat waves, dying coral reefs, huge floods and so on, popping out across the face of the planet like an alcoholic’s veins. But we’re in denial about the Greenhouse thing. “
“Climate change is no longer a doomsday prophecy, it’s a reality.”
I see those well-orchestrated G7 – G20 protests by Anarchists as being environmentally inspired. They certainly use the rhetoric of Leftist Greens.
I’m not going to look them up in the official Govt-funded database because I have no faith in its decisions.
This eco-terrorist was demanding basically what John Holdren, today Obama’s science and technology zcar, wrote in his (in)famous book on global population, environment and end-of-the-world-prognostications thereof many years ago, prophesies that went totally awry.
Should Holdren take some of the responsibility of what happened at Discovery Channel?
Of course, here’s the ultimate scare tactic:
“For the first time in history, my community has had to use air conditioners. Imagine that, air conditioners in the Arctic.”
– Inuit leader Sheila Watt-Cloutier
cited in Sierra Club Currents, Vol VI, #54 6 Mar 07
You got that? For thousands of years, the Inuit have not needed to turn on their air conditioners and now, for the first time, they HAD to use them! Game over. We’re all going to die!
Stefan says:
September 3, 2010 at 4:58 am
…..I accept he was mentally ill. But if I accept that, does that mean we dismiss people who set fire to university buildings as simply “mentally ill” ? (I’m referring to animal liberation front protesters). By labelling them as mentally ill, are we robbing them of their voice as protesters?……
________________________________________
One of the points about this whole business that really bothers me is a conversation I had with a couple of teenagers working as cashiers at a book store. I mention a bit about what was happening on a food safety issue and their immediate response was “WHO do we protest” I responded do not protest just spread the word and vote.
This conversation really bothers me. How many of our young people are infected with this type of mind set? That the correct response to any problem is protests which, with increasing frustration, could escalate. Why are they not taught instead to work with the political system as volunteers and vote. Why are they not taught how our form of government (USA) works? Why are they not taught about their rights and duties as jurists?
Greenpeace had a terrorist incident Tuesday this week. They jumped a drilling platform off Greenland and did great economic damge by halting drilling.
Who started a fire on a rig?
Can’t blame it on mental illness. Too much conscious activity to see it as illness. He was logical and well planned.
ALF, ELF, Unabomber. Lee is right in the tradition of ecoterrorism with the intent to kill.
I know it’s beneath me to say things like this, but I’ve been beneath myself a lot lately and ever sence the current administration came on board there has been an increase in the reeking smell of garbage from UM’s START Center nutcases. This may all be just an unfortunate cooincidence, but I doubt it. I vote that all federal funds and student loans to UM be cut immediately until a proper investigation of this stench can determine the cause of this environmental pollution, say 6 months, like the Great Gulf Oil Drilling Shutdown. Fair’s fair. Left?
RW says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:38 pm
“I’m appalled that you are continuing to use the sad life and untimely death of a horribly ill person in this nasty way. Shame on you.”
Hmm, he died before he could kill an innocent in the name of the froggies and squirrels; that’s not too untimely methinks.
Lee was a disordered person. Those people happen in every “cause” from anti-abortion to environment (remember the nails put in trees that were designed to maim or kill loggers). I do not regard him as representative of anything except a very sick puppy. Hopefully this will not re-occur in the future.