# BC Pipeline Explosion/Bombing



## chris_log (15 Oct 2008)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/10/15/bc-explosion-pipeline-terrorism.html

I'm surprised no one's posted this yet (did a search, couldn't find an existing topic). 

Thoughts? The RCMP are refusing to call it a terrorist act yet (and I agree with them) and are calling it a criminal act. I'm curious to see who did it (reference is made in the article to threatening letters being sent before the explosion).


----------



## PanaEng (15 Oct 2008)

The bomb blew off the insulation but not rupture the pipe...  amateurs!    :threat:

There are a lot of people in those areas that are pretty upset about sour gas leaks affecting livestock and the health of the population. Bomb threats and bombings other confrontations are not uncommon.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Oct 2008)

Of course it is a criminal act, but it is also terrorism.  The Canadian legal definition of terrorism (taken from the Anti-Terrorism Act) is:



> an action that takes place either within or outside of Canada that is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.



The letters certainly show an ideological purpose and they threatened to substantial property damage.

Of course the letters threatening to damage this particular pipeline and the attempted bombing may not be linked at all and it could all be a coincidence.  Or maybe the cops are trying to prevent fear mongering by down playing it all.  Personally I think it makes them look like they are not taking it seriously, being disingenuous, and perhaps a bit slow off the mark by not being willing to treat this as what it really is.

I just really dislike stories like this being spun (either way).  Just tell it like it is.  Use the word maybe, be strong is your lack of knowledge.  The cops are going to look a wee bit silly if the perps are prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation and the some of the first words out of their mouths were:



> "We're not categorizing this as terrorism."


----------



## foresterab (16 Oct 2008)

What people might be forgetting is how much other vandelism/terrorism has occured just accross the border in Alberta a few years ago.

Well heads being cememented 
Pipelines found with drill bits in them
Equipment shacks being shot up
Homemade explosives using shotgun shells found on oil and gas sites

No witnesses, no camera footage, no charges...

Also keep in mind that in the US one of the top targets for the FBI is not Al Quedia but a group known as Earth Liberation Front (ELF) who are self proclaimed "earth liberators".

Any damage in a sour oil and gas field has huge potential to affect not only the workers in the oil patch but the farmers, loggers, tourists, and all other residents in the area.  If you don't know what it is...basically it's a natural product very common in some oil and gas fields.  If you can smell it...you could be exposed to toxic levels...if you smell it and then you can't smell it any more either you've left the pocket or you've hit higher concentrations and you're about to be knocked down and die.

At what point is it violence with intimidation (ala terrorism) for an objective vs. vandelism.  

foresterab


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Oct 2008)

foresterab said:
			
		

> At what point is it violence with intimidation (ala terrorism) for an objective vs. vandelism.



When you add in the fact the serious violence is being done for ideal, cause, etc rather than pure profit or idleness.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

Remember Wiebo Ludwig in Alberta oh...about 10 years ago? He was allegedley an eco-terrorist or some such thing.
I have a long memory.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Oct 2008)

Squamish Five and the Litton bombing...


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Oct 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> The bomb blew off the insulation but not rupture the pipe...  amateurs!    :threat:



They must have been, otherwise they would have placed the explosives properly to cut the pipe  8)

Well I think the media made it bigger then it was.  When I seen the picture on the news this morning the crater didn't look like the 400 lbs of TNT that the media calmed was used.


----------



## PanaEng (16 Oct 2008)

Of course they may have also done it that way on purpose - scare tactic. A breached 30in sour gas pipe could cause a lot of damage to the environment and any nearby humans.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (16 Oct 2008)

RCMP probe second B.C. gas pipeline explosion
Updated Thu. Oct. 16 2008 1:37 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The RCMP is investigating a second explosion on a gas pipeline in northern B.C. near Dawson Creek, close to the Alberta border. 

Police have only confirmed that the explosion targeted a natural gas pipeline owned by EnCana. 

Earlier Thursday, the RCMP confirmed a specialized unit had been called in to investigate a bombing on another EnCana gas pipeline earlier this month. 

Police in the town said someone planted an explosive device near a sour gas pipeline operated by EnCana. 

The blast left a 2.5-metre-wide and 2-metre-deep crater in the ground. It dented the pipeline, which didn't rupture. Otherwise, police said the explosion could have been much worse, noting that sour gas is toxic. 

The Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET) is now helping investigators determine who was behind the incident. 

According to the RCMP website, "INSET members are better able to track, deter, disrupt and prevent criminal activities (major or minor offences) of terrorist groups or individuals who pose a threat to Canada's national security." 

RCMP Sgt. Tim Shields told CTV.ca on Thursday that the unit has been "investigating since day one because it was a direct attack on the infrastructure of British Columbia and that's part of their mandate." 

Shields said the investigation is not a terrorism probe, but instead police are treating the incident like an "isolated criminal act." 

"There appears to be an agenda involved, but we're not characterizing this as an act of terrorism," he told CTV.ca by phone from Vancouver. 

He said police had warned gas and oil companies in the area before the incident about a suspicious letter that was sent to local media outlets on Oct. 10. It told the companies to cease production and leave the area, but did not contain a specific threat. 

"We will no longer negotiate with terrorists which you are as you keep endangering our families with crazy expansion of deadly gas wells in our home lands," said the anonymous letter, parts of which were published by the Dawson Creek Daily News, according to The Canadian Press. 

Shields said investigators are curious about the timing of the letter, which came just a few days before the Oct. 12 bombing. He said police are making the logical assumption that the letter and explosion are linked. 

EnCana spokesman Alan Boras told CP that the company's facilities in northern B.C. haven't been targeted before. He also said the company has good relations with community members. 

"It doesn't mean we don't from time to time have concerns. We work very hard to work through them," Boras said. 

One area resident also told CP that some landowners have been fighting for more land use rights. 

Gwen Johanson, a representative of Custodians of the Peace which represents some of those property owners, says she's never heard anyone make threats against the gas industry. 

"We don't want to go that route," she said. 

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## chris_log (16 Oct 2008)

Explosion #2. this time it actually damaged the pipe and caused a small leak. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081016/pipeline_bombing_081016/20081016?hub=TopStories


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Oct 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> amateurs!



Amatures? So too were many bombers on my tour in Iraq.

Whatever they are are, its till a bomb, it still can kill, mame and cause damage to a vital pipe line. In my view, thats terrorism.

HME or stolen HE? They still are getting their message accross. They are still a danger to society and Emergency Services, who might have to de-fuse the next one, or put out a fire caused by one, and at the end of the day, someone has to pay for the damage, and now an ongoing RCMP investigation.

Hope they catch the bastards, and make examples out of them when they do.

OWDU


----------



## George Wallace (16 Oct 2008)

foresterab said:
			
		

> Any damage in a sour oil and gas field has huge potential to affect not only the workers in the oil patch but the farmers, loggers, tourists, and all other residents in the area.  If you don't know what it is...basically it's a natural product very common in some oil and gas fields.  If you can smell it...you could be exposed to toxic levels...if you smell it and then you can't smell it any more either you've left the pocket or you've hit higher concentrations and you're about to be knocked down and die.



We can  call it a "Criminal Act", "Vandalism", "ECO Terrorism", or just "Terrorism".  It all boils down to some sick minds making a threat and carrying it out.  It is all semantics.  To me they are all one and the same.  An act of Terrorism is a Criminal Act.  It is an action that contravenes the laws of the land.

It is interesting that these nut cases call the Companies pumping the Sour Gas Terrorists, when they are the ones who are causing the release of the gas from safe transmission pipes.

Seems that they have one really warped concept of reality.

I hope that the Police capture the guilty parties, now that a second bomb has caused damage, and prosecute them under the new Terrorism Laws.  I know I would never make Jury selection, as I would be going for the reinstatement of the Death Penalty.  These people have not only put the lives of innocent people in great danger, but they are doing possible irreparable damage to the environment and Eco system.


----------



## Scott (16 Oct 2008)

Rifle shots at gas plants.

Phone calls to well operators families saying, "your husband is not coming home tonight"

Flat tires caused by nails on the road.

Wellheads encased in concrete...concrete containing shotgun shells for the poor bastard trying to chip away said concrete.

This is starting like it did some years back and is eerily close to the setting of the last round.

This sort of thing puts many at risk: the general public (years ago one of the pipelines targeted was very close to a highway during peak tourist times), the operators, the firefighters and other emergency response members AND the dumb bastard who decides to do this in the first place. Maybe we'll get lucky in a sense and this idiot or group of idiots will vaporize themselves with one of their "statements" No need for a trial....

And remember Karman http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011982


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

I remember this. Was he ever prosecuted? And people say we have no "terrorists" in Canada. We've got our share for sure.


----------



## chris_log (16 Oct 2008)

Eco-terrorism (something this is shaping up to look like) is an interesting and inherently self-contradicting thing, on one hand they claim to want to protect the enviroment but on the other they both try to kill, injure or put at risk some of 'the earth's children' (humans) and often their acts harm the environment after all. 

Letting animals out of research labs that are diseased, helpless and do not belong in the local ecosystem is a HUGE problem...bombing pipelines and whaling ships (releasing POL into the environment)...smashing and destroying industrial facilities (again, releasing gases, POL and other contaminants into the environment)...just to name a few. 

The earth and animal 'liberation' movements are, despite being beaten quite soundly by LE a number of years ago, still alive and well and DO present a threat to our society. Whether they be a well organised eco-warfare group like Greenpeace (I wouldn't call them terrorists) or radical groups like PETA and the ELF/ALF, they do present a criminal threat but are somehow considered legitimate and are protected due to their seemingly mythical status as defenders of the downtrodden. Essentially, our society justifies their actions the same way say the Irish legitimized the actions of the IRA or the Basques support the ETA. 

Are these BC bombings an act by an organised cell-style group like the ELF or something my small-scale and grassroots like a group of local activists? This remains to be seen and I am most interested in how this turns out.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2008)

I'm thinking a few years in a Federal Pen might make them see the error of their ways.


----------



## Danjanou (16 Oct 2008)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Squamish Five and the Litton bombing...



They started off bombing BC Hydro substations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamish_Five


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

foresterab said:
			
		

> What people might be forgetting is how much other vandelism/terrorism has occured just accross the border in Alberta a few years ago.
> 
> Well heads being cememented
> Pipelines found with drill bits in them
> ...



Took the words out of my mouth. Exactly its not so much a terrorist cell as most of the general public is going to interpret that little media story, rather eco-terrorists, this is the same group that was known for blowing up SUV's because they were harsh on the environment due to the amounts of gas they burn. 

Eco-terrorism as it's know in the environmental industry is not a new concept, it's something that has been going on for years, and just as violent.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> Took the words out of my mouth. Exactly its not so much a terrorist cell as most of the general public is going to interpret that little media story, rather eco-terrorists, this is the same group that was known for blowing up SUV's because they were harsh on the environment due to the amounts of gas they burn.



Could I ask you what the difference is between an "ECO Terrorist" blowing up a SUV and say a member of the FLQ or Taliban blowing up a SUV?


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Could I ask you what the difference is between an "ECO Terrorist" blowing up a SUV and say a member of the FLQ or Taliban blowing up a SUV?



There is no difference. Both are out to gain notoriety. I don't think "Eco" terrorists would care either if a human being was killed in their escpades.

They are terrorists, plain and simple.


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> There is no difference. Both are out to gain notoriety. I don't think "Eco" terrorists would care either if a human being was killed in their escpades.
> 
> They are terrorists, plain and simple.




The MO of eco-terrorists is generally a lot different, most incidents of eco-terrorism that have been conducted and people charged for are generally well calculated risks, and generally planned around not creating bodily harm, as an example when the SUV's were fire bombed, they we parked etc, these people do not just generally toss pipe bombs wherever. Is it terrorism, yes; but at the same time, it is not the type of terrorism, that is generally projected by the media. 

You are right, sometimes death and injury does happen, in the logging industry, a favorite game of hippie types and eco-terrorists who do not believe in logging, will spike trees when they are young. This is done usually with 2-5 railroad spikes driven into the tree, as the trees grow the new growth eventually  covers the spike, and it become embedded in the middle of the tree. 

So when the tree is being marked to be harvested and felled. and is taken to be milled, and fed through the cutting system, those spikes embedded in that tree obviously damage the system, of course the off shoot of that is throwing a couple railroad spikes, into a massive table saw, is not smart. 

The difference is most eco-terrorists are hell bound on destroying property, death happens but its not the goal and it is usually a chain reaction, ie worker at the mill, vs your average suicide bomber, where death is the outcome. 

The site I currently have been working on as a geological tech, we have had problems with people entering the site at night, and damaging equipment, dumping stuff into gas tanks (sugar) of work trucks, cutting wires, spray painting. All are which are the general types of stuff these BS "activists" are typical of.


----------



## Greymatters (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> The site I currently have been working on as a geological tech, we have had problems with people entering the site at night, and damaging equipment, dumping stuff into gas tanks (sugar) of work trucks, cutting wires, spray painting. All are which are the general types of stuff these BS "activists" are typical of.



What security measures has your org taken to mitigate this?


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> What security measures has your org taken to mitigate this?



The company has taken various steps, increased security via person and cameras with and around main entry points, and buildings. The reality is that it's hard to stop, as the site is large, and there are various entry points throughout the site that can be created. 

It hard with sites like the one I currently work on, because it is open, its not like we can just get security cameras placed wherever we want them, and were we send untrained persons on the site is limited, ie we can not expect hired security to enter various areas of the site, because it is unsafe for them to do so, and its the company who owns the site's ass if something happens. 

Various things are being done on the site, deconstruction and recycling of the materials from that, plus we have drills operating on the site of the purpose of bore holes to do Hydrogeology work, as well as general soil profiles etc.  

Because of the nature of what the site was used for, before the company bought it with the intention of rehabing it, there are all kinds of issues on the site, to prevent normal security measures one would normally take on say your average construction sites where condo's are being built. 

If you would like me to further explain what I mean in that regard, feel free to PM.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> The difference is most eco-terrorists are hell bound on destroying property, death happens but its not the goal and it is usually a chain reaction, ie worker at the mill, vs your average suicide bomber, where death is the outcome....



Bullshit, death is a very real possibility if there in any sort of tampering in an industrial process and you cannot igore that possibility.  It is known that if you set a spike in a tree that is going into lumber mill could result in the death of a mill worker.  If you walk into a lumber mill with a suicide vest it could also result in the death of a mill worker.  Same result.  You would have to be a very ivory tower terrorist if you think that industrial sabotage is free of risks to human beings.



> Because of the nature of what the site was used for, before the company bought it with the intention of rehabing it, there are all kinds of issues on the site, to prevent normal security measures one would normally take on say your average construction sites where condo's are being built.



/cynic hat on
So the security measures would be too expensive is what you are saying?
/cynic hat off


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> The difference is most eco-terrorists are hell bound on destroying property, death happens but its not the goal and it is usually a chain reaction, ie worker at the mill, vs your average suicide bomber, where death is the outcome.



NO.

These IRRESPONSIBLE " ECO terrorists" are only fooling themselves if they conduct these types of activities and do not accept the fact that they knowingly could be contributing to the death of a person or other living creature, and damaging the environment.  They are the equivalent to the Drunk who gets into an automobile and drives down a busy thoroughfare.  They are just as responsible for the end results of their activities, as the drunk, or any other member of our society.  They can not claim "innocence" in any way.  They are committing acts that could possibly take lives.  Even the car bombings could take someone's life.  Do they actually take the time and effort to search and cordone off the SUVs that they fire bomb, ensuring the safety of the Public?  I highly doubt it.

Are they trying to "terrorize" persons working in those industries?  Yes, they are.  They then use terrorism as a tool, and that fits the description of what a Terrorist is.


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Bullshit, death is a very real possibility if there in any sort of tampering in an industrial process and you cannot igore that possibility.  It is known that if you set a spike in a tree that is going into lumber mill could result in the death of a mill worker.  If you walk into a lumber mill with a suicide vest it could also result in the death of a mill worker.  Same result.  You would have to be a very ivory tower terrorist if you thing that industrial sabotage is free of risks to human beings.
> 
> 
> /cynic hat on
> ...




Most logging mills are unmanned but there is a risk, but like i said that is not the intention where as suicide bombers for example intend to die, and take as many people with them as possible. Eco terrorists are just as the name states, I personally as someone who works in the industry would not toss someone who released a mink farm into the wild resulting in huge money loss, in the same catergory as  the suicide bomber in the sandbox, who decided it was a good idea to blow themselves up in the local market square.

 As far as the site I work on,we have holes that are open for the purpose of soil pits, areas which are potentially contaminated ie when we enter that section of the site, where the earth has been opened, we take the appropriate precautions. 

It's not because it's expensive, its because of the safety risks that we limit where hired security can go on the site.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2008)

It isn't the Mills that are the problem, as much as it is the Logger with the chainsaw.  When a Logger has the fear of dismemberment and death everyday when he goes to work, that his chainsaw may hit a spike and cause the chain or saw to cause him injury, then you have a Terrorist Act.


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

I agree it is terrorism, my point is it is not the type of terrorism that most of the general public thinks of when they hear the word, the media definition of terrorism these days, is very different from the classical definition of terrorism, which we so widely just discussed. 

Most people outside the industry will never really hear of or encounter eco-terrorism, it happens everyday but it is not widely projected by media. Most eco terrorists however are charged with vandalism, and destruction of property vs anti terrorism laws, which is something I would like to see changed, but the legal definition differs, therefore they are not prosecuted to the same extent.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> Most logging mills are unmanned but there is a risk, but like i said that is not the intention where as suicide bombers for example intend to die, and take as many people with them as possible. Eco terrorists are just as the name states, I personally as someone who works in the industry would not toss someone who released a mink farm into the wild resulting in huge money loss, in the same catergory as  the suicide bomber in the sandbox, who decided it was a good idea to blow themselves up in the local market square.
> 
> As far as the site I work on,we have holes that are open for the purpose of soil pits, areas which are potentially contaminated ie when we enter that section of the site, where the earth has been opened, we take the appropriate precautions.
> 
> It's not because it's expensive, its because of the safety risks that we limit where hired security can go on the site.



We are not talking about releasing minks into the wild.  We are talking about deliberate acts to seriously damage infrastructure or material and seriously injure or kill people.  If you spike 100 trees you have as much potential to kill people as if you walked into a room with 100 people wearing a suicide vest.

So why cant you install cameras?  There must be boundaries to the site you are working at.


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> We are not talking about releasing minks into the wild.  We are talking about deliberate acts to seriously damage infrastructure or material and seriously injure or kill people.  If you spike 100 trees you have as much potential to kill people as if you walked into a room with 100 people wearing a suicide vest.
> 
> 
> So why cant you install cameras?  There must be boundaries to the site you are working at.



Ah but that mink farm is an act of eco terrorism, it falls under the legal definition. 

There are boundaries, man made, and natural, but camera which we have in these areas, but when the fence line is in the trees, which are heavily wooded for example at the far back end of the site, a camera is not going to do us much good. Even with cameras up, we still have problems. Where there is a will there is a way, and having the site in the same area as the Environmental College doesn't help. 

Like i said, it's something that happens all the time in the industry, so far the problems we have on the site have decreased due to measures taken, but it has not eliminated the problem, Just like tree spiking there are only so many measures you can take. With us the eco terrorism we are facing is the typical type, doesn't cause any harm, just costs time and money. 

Regardless I am just the Geo Tech, and how my employer decides to approach the issue of the site and it's equpment doesn't affect me, regardless of delays and everything else, I still get paid.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> Ah but that mink farm is an act of eco terrorism, it falls under the legal definition.


I would argue that releasing minks into the wild does not fall under the definition


> an action that takes place either within or outside of Canada that is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.



Into the wild- minimizes the chance of serious harm to people.  Release them into a day care where the kids of mink farm workers kids are, then yes, terrorism definition applies.
Disrupt and essential service- I would posit that mink farming is not an essential service.  Our lumber industry is a vital part of our economy.



> just costs time and money.


Time is money, so you are saying it just costs money.



> /cynic hat on
> So the security measures would be too expensive is what you are saying?
> /cynic hat off


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

Eco-terrorism, has it's own definition. It is not classed under the general terrorism definition, it can be very much the same, but has it's own definition, because most eco-terrorist incidents are huge escalated acts of vandalism. Same thing but it differs. 

"Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act" which defined an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."

ELF's goal of "inflict[ing] maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment" has inspired people to set fire to SUVs at a New Mexico car dealership, Hummers in California, and a Vail ski lodge whose construction threatened the lynx, an endangered species. Damage to the Colorado ski project amounted to $12 million.

ELF members are vandals. They're arsonists. But they aren't terrorists, not by the classic definition you gave me. 

Logging while we class it as an essential service really isn't, as places like France seem to do just fine, and wood there and logging is rare, it is essential because we as Canadians deem it as such, essential service would be more along the lines of hydro, drinking water, waste treatment, etc.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Oct 2008)

What Canadian legal definition can you provide?

The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is not Canadian legislation, and from what I can find it is not even passed in the US.

If there is no Canadian definition then there is no difference between political, social, environmental, or any other sub-catagory.  Terrorism is terrorism.

It doesn't matter if someone wants to save a long rat with nice fur or throw of the yokes of oppression on their tribe, if you are willing to use seriously violent means to do so then it is terrorism.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Oct 2008)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I would argue that releasing minks into the wild does not fall under the definition
> Into the wild- minimizes the chance of serious harm to people.  Release them into a day care where the kids of mink farm workers kids are, then yes, terrorism definition applies.
> Disrupt and essential service- I would posit that mink farming is not an essential service.  Our lumber industry is a vital part of our economy.
> 
> Time is money, so you are saying it just costs money.



Minks are voracious predators.  If you released several hundred into the wild in a relatively small area, the damage to the ecosystem would immediately be devastating.  So much for environmental preservation.  Instead of cameras, try several large well trained (or poorly trained, even), rottweilers.


----------



## NL_engineer (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> ELF members are vandals. They're arsonists. But they aren't terrorists, not by the classic definition you gave me.




Well they fit in below, so they are terrorists, and IMO should be treated as such; Including being held for an indefinite period of time.


I boldded a part to fit there cause


> PART II.1
> TERRORISM
> ..........................
> 
> ...



link like anyone can't guess were this is from


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> What Canadian legal definition can you provide?
> 
> The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is not Canadian legislation, and from what I can find it is not even passed in the US.
> 
> ...



Eco-terrorists are rarely if ever charged with terrorism I personally have never heard of one, but there very well could be.  They are charged under environmental law, and vandalism if anything, those that spike trees and are caught fall underneath prosecution under environmental law, backed up by various forestry laws, those that damage and bomb suv's are charged with destruction of property, and arson. Eco terrorists are not terrorists by definition, as they do not call for death and destruction, most radical enviromental groups are economically motivated. 

Eco-terrorism is one of those terms that can both ways, it is not a legal term, rather a term coined by people who work in the industry, it has also been used to describe those that are guilty of break environmental law such as clear cutting, strip mining etc.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Oct 2008)

ELT is the #1 domestic terrorist group in the US according to the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march08/seattlearson_030408.html

SEATTLE ECO-TERRORISM INVESTIGATION
03/04/08

Early Monday morning, three luxury show homes in a northeast Seattle suburb were destroyed by fire in an apparent arson and a possible act of domestic terrorism.

Two more houses were targeted, one of which was damaged. Each of the homes—models for a massive luxury development called the “Seattle Street of Dreams” northeast of the city—was vacant. No one was hurt in the blazes.  


Our Seattle Joint Terrorism Task Force—one of more than 100 around the country—responded to the scene and launched an investigation in concert with local county fire crews and investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

A large banner signed by the eco-terrorist group ELF, or Earth Liberation Front, was left at the scene on a nearby fence. The sign read: “Built Green? Nope Black! McMansions + RCDs r not green ELF.” “RCD” is apparently a reference to rural cluster developments. 

The attack is the first linked to ELF in the Seattle area since January 2006, says Dave Gomez, the FBI Seattle Assistant Special Agent in Charge responsible for counterterrorism. Nationwide, radical environmentalists have threatened lives and caused more than $100 million in damages in recent years, targeting businesses, universities, researchers, and others it believes are harming the environment. Some victims have been attacked by mistake. ELF radicals typically work in autonomous cells, much like many international terrorist operatives. 

If you have any information concerning the fires, please contact the Seattle Joint Terrorism Task Force at (206) 622-0460.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/dt/fug_dt.htm


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Minks are voracious predators.  If you released several hundred into the wild in a relatively small area, the damage to the ecosystem would immediately be devastating.  So much for environmental preservation.



Releasing things where the should not be, and invasive species, are a whole different problem in the industry all together. 

As as side note the military as often been coined as Eco-terrorists by the industry because of the use of Agent Orange etc, even though the effects to the environment were know, as well as the varied affect it had on people.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> Eco-terrorists are rarely if ever charged with terrorism I personally have never heard of one, but there very well could be.  They are charged under environmental law, and vandalism if anything, those that spike trees and are caught fall underneath prosecution under environmental law, backed up by various forestry laws, those that damage and bomb suv's are charged with destruction of property, and arson. Eco terrorists are not terrorists by definition, as they do not call for death and destruction, most radical enviromental groups are economically motivated.
> 
> Eco-terrorism is one of those terms that can both ways, it is not a legal term, rather a term coined by people who work in the industry, it has also been used to describe those that are guilty of break environmental law such as clear cutting, strip mining etc.



I think we are all arguing semantics here, and are all on the same side. 

Let's face it.  The Government Prosecutors are going to charge these people, when caught, with Charges that will stick and to which there is clear evidence.  If they charged them with Acts of Terrorism, and loopholes are found in the existing laws, then these people will get off scott free.  The Prosecution probably feels that to find them guilty of breaking the Law, with out question, is better than them getting off on a technicality.


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think we are all arguing semantics here, and are all on the same side.
> 
> Let's face it.  The Government Prosecutors are going to charge these people, when caught, with Charges that will stick and to which there is clear evidence.  If they charged them with Acts of Terrorism, and loopholes are found in the existing laws, then these people will get off scott free.  The Prosecution probably feels that to find them guilty of breaking the Law, with out question, is better than them getting off on a technicality.



Bingo, your not going to see someone labeled as a terrorist via conviction by the law for spiking trees, way too many loop holes, but under the forestry act and various environmental laws its pretty cut and dry.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> Bingo, your not going to see someone labeled as a terrorist via conviction by the law for spiking trees, way too many loop holes, but under the forestry act and various environmental laws its pretty cut and dry.



What loop holes?  Can you provide any?  Or is it just that the anti-terrorism legislation is fairly new and no one in the environmental movements has been charged with it yet?  And a lot of people think like you with regard to downplaying the potential impact and growth of domestic terrorism and dont think of using anti-terrorism tools in these cases.

Still waiting on information regarding the Canadian Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act.



> Logging while we class it as an essential service really isn't, as places like France seem to do just fine, and wood there and logging is rare, it is essential because we as Canadians deem it as such, essential service would be more along the lines of hydro, drinking water, waste treatment, etc.



Umm, while France is not deforested, it has nowhere the forestry industry we have, so I fail to see what France has to do with anything.  Forestry produces 4-5% of Canada's manufacturing sector.  It produces over 50% of our trade surplus.  I would say that makes it a vital part our country.  How do you think the economy, social services network, and balance of trade would be affected if it ground to a halt?  We produce 30% of the worlds traded lumber, it wouldn't only have domestic implications.


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Oct 2008)

I didn't say that particular act was Canadian, I posted it because it is a basic umbrella definition of how the industry defines Eco-terrorism, which is not a legal term in Canada it is in the states, here it is simply a term coined and used by the industry. 

Logging while huge money wise for this country it is not an essential service, water, hydro etc all essential ie they sustain life. Bottom line is taking someone to court and having them changed and convicted of terrorist activities for spiking trees, or setting fire to logging equipment which could halt operation for weeks, is a far stretch. Chances are they are going to get out of it, there are loop holes and lawyers are trained to find them, and make them fit to get their client off. 

It's easier to break out the environmental laws, backed by the forestry act, and nail that person for their violations against the environment, instead of trying to nail them for terrorist crimes against the industry. Environmental law is strict and to the point, and would better apply to a forestry related offense, than an anti-terrorist law. 

It has nothing to do with anti-terrorist laws being new, rather the context of the offense. 

You can argue with me till your blue in the face, but in the Environmental world, the forestry industry does not rank that high on the essential services scale, over logging etc is being managed but it takes a back seat to contaimination issues, and water issues. Logging isn't going to screw with your drinking water. 

BTW under your way of looking at eco-terrorism than I suppose those that were guilty of knowing and covering up the pump that was down creating the Walkerton incident should be convicted of Terrorism, as that actually killed people.  That's more shifty in my eyes, than some hippie spiking trees.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Oct 2008)

S.Stewart said:
			
		

> BTW under your way of looking at eco-terrorism than I suppose those that were guilty of knowing and covering up the pump that was down creating the Walkerton incident should be convicted of Terrorism, as that actually killed people.  That's more shifty in my eyes, than some hippie spiking trees.



Ah, but they didn't set out to kill people.  They just tried to cover their asses.

I had no intention of linking the forestry industry with the environment in my examples.  It is not an essential service, but it is an essential part of the Canadian economy and therefore of national interest.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ELT is the #1 domestic terrorist group in the US according to the FBI.
> 
> http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march08/seattlearson_030408.html
> 
> ...



Tomahawk6, you beat me to the punch. While eco-terrorism does not kill that many people (when compared to 9/11) it still causes damage and disruption. And not only is the ELF (and like minded groups) the #1 terrorist group the No.1 terrorist group in the U.S., there are more eco-terrorism incidents in the U.S. then any other kind of terrorism. As the above post makes clear the U.S. authorities take the threat very seriously. Another aspect of eco-terrorism that most people the targeting of people/organizations involved in animal-testing for scientific research. These are deliberate attempts to intimidate these people/organizations, which is considered to be terrorism and are treated as such by the authorities.


----------



## Jack Stratton (17 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think we are all arguing semantics here, and are all on the same side.
> 
> Let's face it.  The Government Prosecutors are going to charge these people, when caught, with Charges that will stick and to which there is clear evidence.  If they charged them with Acts of Terrorism, and loopholes are found in the existing laws, then these people will get off scott free.  The Prosecution probably feels that to find them guilty of breaking the Law, with out question, is better than them getting off on a technicality.



Absolutely right - attempting to blow up a sour gas line is a stupid, dangerous, reckless and evil act. I work in the oil patch and I can assure you the devastation from something like this could be amazing. When the perpetrator(s) are caught the important thing is to get them convicted on a serous enough charge that they go away for a long time. If some were caught and got away with it we would be opening the door to a lot more trouble.

The Crown has wide discretion in selecting charges because each charge carries with it specific requirements, which is why sometimes what we in the wider public think is a murder is charged as a manslaughter, not because the crime is less evil, but because the required proof for a murder is different than the required proof for a manslaughter. In this case a threatening letter was sent and to us it appears to be ideologically motivated, but it might be that it was a criminal individual that sent that note in order to create the impression that there was an ideological motivation to get media attention for a crime the equivalent to a major arson. The common law system very much focuses on intent as an aspect of crime - so regardless of whether we think the criminal acted as a terrorist the law will also ask - did the person(s) who did the act have the elements of intent required for a terror charge versus some other criminal charge with a less complex evidentiary burden. This can frustrate the public, but it is a key aspect of our legal system and very tightly tied to the fundamental rights of citizens and a necessary limit within our system to prevent abuse of power by prosecutors, courts and legislators.

We also have to be judicious in the use of the term terrorist or we risk reducing the meaning of the definition to just an extension of the term criminal. We all know there is a difference between ordinary crimes, terrorist crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, political crimes and so on. If we use the term terrorist to mean all of these categories, we reduce our ability to discuss and analyze these horrors and that can negatively impact how well intelligence can be developed to combat the criminals and by muddying the waters we may prevent the best deployment of resources to eliminate the ideological, political, religio-ethnic tensions that motivate the criminals. In our society we have to convince the public to support a cause, if we make the discussion confusing we either hurt chances to legitimately convince the public of our cause, or we undermine the basis of our democracy by denying the people the right to shape public policy.


----------



## chris_log (17 Oct 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081017/pipeline_blasts_081017/20081017?hub=Canada

Key phrase being 'residents in the area are worried for their safety'. Yep, sounds like terrorism to me. I wonder if the RCMP will come out and call it that or will they continue to refer to it as an 'isolated criminal act'. Whether it's a 'group' of 1 person or 100...they have managed to scare local residents, get the attention of the gas company and gov't and waste money and time on an investigation. 

Time for the RCMP to start calling a spade a spade.


----------



## Jack Stratton (17 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081017/pipeline_blasts_081017/20081017?hub=Canada
> 
> Key phrase being 'residents in the area are worried for their safety'. Yep, sounds like terrorism to me. I wonder if the RCMP will come out and call it that or will they continue to refer to it as an 'isolated criminal act'. Whether it's a 'group' of 1 person or 100...they have managed to scare local residents, get the attention of the gas company and gov't and waste money and time on an investigation.
> 
> Time for the RCMP to start calling a spade a spade.



In the interests of clarity, do you believe that any criminal who inspires fear is by definition a terrorist? For example drunk drivers can cause serious damage to property, death and distruction and people could be afraid of that. There have been cases of serial rapists in Canada that that have terrified whole communities and serial murderers who have done the same. If we use the 'causing of fear' as the basis for a defining a terrorist them pretty much every criminal case could be interpreted as terrorism even something as simple as a school bully who punches another kid and scares his classmates might be open to a terror charge the way I interpret your post. This is what I meant in my previous post by being careful to apply the right terms to define a crime. Quite often a spade is actually a shovel.

This guy or guys in BC are scary, but so far I do not think there is evidence of this being actual terrorist activity - and I work in the business and am scared of this kind of thing happening again.


----------



## chris_log (17 Oct 2008)

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> In the interests of clarity, do you believe that any criminal who inspires fear is by definition a terrorist? For example drunk drivers can cause serious damage to property, death and distruction and people could be afraid of that. There have been cases of serial rapists in Canada that that have terrified whole communities and serial murderers who have done the same. If we use the 'causing of fear' as the basis for a defining a terrorist them pretty much every criminal case could be interpreted as terrorism even something as simple as a school bully who punches another kid and scares his classmates might be open to a terror charge the way I interpret your post. This is what I meant in my previous post by being careful to apply the right terms to define a crime. Quite often a spade is actually a shovel.
> 
> This guy or guys in BC are scary, but so far I do not think there is evidence of this being actual terrorist activity - and I work in the business and am scared of this kind of thing happening again.



Drunk drivers don't have a political or ideological agenda, neither do serial killers/rapists. 

It's obvious that whoever did this had an agenda (reference the letters sent to local media before the first attack). They are committing an attack to further their group's political and environmental goals. 

Terrorism can be summed up as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." This 'group' or person sent a threatening letter, outlined what they were going to attack (gas lines) and why (threatened the environment, land use rights etc) and then bombed the pipelines. You tell me how this DOESN'T look like terrorism.


----------



## Jack Stratton (17 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Drunk drivers don't have a political or ideological agenda, neither do serial killers/rapists.
> 
> It's obvious that whoever did this had an agenda (reference the letters sent to local media before the first attack). They are committing an attack to further their group's political and environmental goals.
> 
> Terrorism can be summed up as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." This 'group' or person sent a threatening letter, outlined what they were going to attack (gas lines) and why (threatened the environment, land use rights etc) and then bombed the pipelines. You tell me how this DOESN'T look like terrorism.




I don't say this is absolutely not terrorism, I just said it might not be and I think it is too early to tell. I'll give you a few points that I think point to a local person who is upset with gas activity in affecting their property rather than a terrorist organization targetting Canada's energy sector:

First: Attacks against oil and gas facilities are not new in Canada, I'm sure you remember Wiebo Ludwig who, along with his family/clan/religious sect were involved in a previous conflict with EnCana in the Grande Praire region of AB. Wiebo is more what you would call a "nut case" than a terrorist - and while he and his little enclave had an ideology they really form too small a group to call it a terrorist organization unless by the same standard we want to label local street gangs the same way. In addition we find in any given year certain amount of sabotage and other such issues, bullet marks on pipes, valves opened to release gas and so on. This is not a unique event, a new event or substantially different than things that have happened before, other than the higher level of media coverage.

Second: A threatening letter is not so uncommon either, one local refinery had a bomb threat the other day - turned out not to be a terror thing, just a idiot labourer who had used up his sick days and did not want to come in for work. (I am not kidding this happens in the civilian world). 

Third: The target was remote and not likely to produce good media coverage. If someone really wanted to get good value from a bomb and a gas pipeline they would pick a main transmission pipeline as it enters a major population centre. Or they would pick one of the sour fields up wind of Calgary. Terrorism is about coverage in the media to generate the result.

Fourth: Only the facilities of one company were targetted, and its the same company Wiebo had it in for.

Fifth: The letter went to a local news agency only. If for some reason a terrorist decided to commit an act  like this why target the teeny tiny local press only and not also send a copy of the threat to the Globe and Mail or the National Post or CTV?

Sixth: Bombs are not the exclusive territory of terrorists, during the biker wars in Quebec the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine used bombs against each other and terrified the public in so doing. While these outlaw bikers engage in criminal activities, they really are not terrorists unless we are going to stretch the meaning of that word all out of reality. And yes you can argue they are ideologically motivated: they believe in the right to sell drugs and profit by it - a trait they share with the IRA (terrorist) and the Taliban (insurgents/terrorists), despite this commonality of business activities we do not think of Biker Gangs as terrorists. Though trying to make a terror charge stick to them would be great fun!

On the other side of the argument:
The combination of threats, media contacts, bombings and so on do look quite a lot like a terrorist's modus operandi. 


When we no more, and the RCMP get their man or men - we'll find out what's going on.

Cheers,


----------



## chris_log (17 Oct 2008)

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> I don't say this is absolutely not terrorism, I just said it might not be and I think it is too early to tell. I'll give you a few points that I think point to a local person who is upset with gas activity in affecting their property rather than a terrorist organization targetting Canada's energy sector:



It sounds like you associate terrorists with organised groups like Al Qaida, etc. This could be the work of a few locals annoyed at the oil and gas industy, and it's still terrorism. It's called domestic terrorism.


----------



## Jack Stratton (18 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> It sounds like you associate terrorists with organised groups like Al Qaida, etc. This could be the work of a few locals annoyed at the oil and gas industy, and it's still terrorism. It's called domestic terrorism.



I agree that there is such a thing as domestic terrorism, and the current events under discussion may fit the description. I am not so naive as to believe that only international groups do terrorism. However, I do assert (as does the law) that some level of organization must be present in the criminal act for it to cross over from ordinary crime to terrorism and 'a few locals' might just be enough to meet the standard if there was a political, ideological or religious motivation. Let me be clear here, to me an ideology for these atrocious acts would be something like "all sour gas is evil and must be destroyed" but "I hate that oil company that owns that pipe" would not be ideology it is just hate. Now we know the note claimed something like the former, but that could be merely a smoke screen for the latter.

I think I already stated my opinion about maintaining the utility and integrity of language in regards to terrorism, so I won't bother to repeat it, however I still have 2 cents worth (well 1.2 cents after recent market downturn) in regard to the anti-terror law:

From a legal standpoint:
For a criminal act to be classed as terrorism it seems to be necessary for there to be an element of organization and an element of political religious or ideological motivation. The Canadian terrorism law uses the terminology of "a conspiracy" to capture the element of organization required for a crime to be classed as terrorism, which is a pretty low threshold as two people can form a conspiracy, but generally two person crimes avoid that additional charge as proving a conspiracy is actually difficult to do, as it is necessary to prove mutual intent and planning to a legal standard. Lawyers and citizens alike will be able to argue for years over how the terms "political", "religious" or "ideological" are to be interpreted as elements of a criminal act. The way this law works, to get a criminal conviction, a jury or judge would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that one of those motivations (politics, religion, ideology) fitted and the person committing the act was conscious of that aspect of the motivation as part of their ill intent and that they shared this with at least one other person in a way that fits the definition of conspiracy and that the act they committed fit the other technical requirements under the law. We will have to see how this works when the decision comes in the Momin Khawaja case at the end of this month. (Mr. Khawaja is accused of participating in a plot to set off fertilizer bombs in the UK, including making detonators and he appears to have been involved in an alleged terror training camp in Ontario - to me this one looks cut and dried but the judge gave himself a month to work through his decision).

In the specific language of the law we can see that the framers of the law were concerned about the over extension of the anti-terrorism law when they specifically included adjectives requiring "serious" risks to people or "substantial" damage to property or specifically causing death or endangering a persons life as necessary elements. Depending on exactly how these attacks were done they might not even fit the physical requirements (e.g. the perpetrator may have ensured no one was present, the explosives may have been sized to not cause major damage etc.). 

The British courts have in the past had trouble convicting of terrorism criminals who clearly committed (in my mind) obviously terrorist acts because judges and juries had trouble applying the standards for criminal conviction to the elements of ideology, religion and political motivations to groups and individuals who committed the acts. The result was they added laws specifically to criminalize using explosives or intent to use explosives in a criminal way. This gets the difficult argument about the political/religious/ideological motivation out of the way and reduces the issues to whether or not the perpetrator was planning to do something criminally dangerous and evil. A similar problem has affected attempts to criminalize membership in organized crime groups in Canada and to date nothing has really worked here in regard to these groups due to the difficulty of proving the intention to commit evil required in common law for a criminal conviction.

Bottom Line:
We're all on the same basic side here we do not like people who do stupid, dangerous and criminal things, threaten people and blow stuff up. Let's hope they get this person or persons soon - because sooner or later these pipeline bombers will do some real damage. No matter whether they are legally or morally terrorists or not, they are dangerous, very dangerous and must be stopped.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Oct 2008)

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> For a criminal act to be classed as terrorism it seems to be necessary for there to be an element of organization and an element of political religious or ideological motivation.



That's part of the argument against the idea of 'lone wolf' terrorists.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> It sounds like you associate terrorists with organised groups like Al Qaida, etc. This could be the work of a few locals annoyed at the oil and gas industy, and it's still terrorism. It's called domestic terrorism.



Just to play your little game: Al Qaida in your books would then be "International Terrorists" and the Taliban would be "Domestic Terrorists".


----------



## chris_log (18 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just to play your little game: Al Qaida in your books would then be "International Terrorists" and the Taliban would be "Domestic Terrorists".



 : Let's play the semantics game then...

Domestic Terrorism: "terrorist acts by individuals or groups within a given country, without foreign direction or involvement"
International Terrorism: "terrorist acts directed by foreign groups who transcend national boundaries, affecting people in several countries"

The Taliban have never been classified as a terrorist org. They were a national government of sorts (before 9/11) and now are considered an insurgent group (insurgent: "member of a political party who rebels against established leadership") rebelling against the Afghan leadership. Have they become a terrorist group? You could argue that. Heck, you an conclude whatever you like. 

And watch the 'little game' comments too. I'm not 12, and you're not as important as you like to think you are George.


----------



## Jack Stratton (18 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> The Taliban have never been classified as a terrorist org. They were a national government of sorts (before 9/11) and now are considered an insurgent group (insurgent: "member of a political party who rebels against established leadership") rebelling against the Afghan leadership. Have they become a terrorist group? You could argue that. Heck, you an conclude whatever you like.




Excellent point there, it would be very easy based on available information to classify the Taliban as a Terrorist group rather than an insurgency that uses terror tactics. The term insurgent, when applied to a group, usually implies some level of general support in a geopolitical region while the term terrorist does not carry this same connotation. It is more practical and useful to use the terminology of insurgency about the Taliban as it more accurately reflects where this group fits in the political and cultural environment of Afghanistan and so we use the lever of semantics to communicate ideas better by choosing the correct wording.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> :
> ...............
> And watch the 'little game' comments too. I'm not 12, and you're not as important as you like to think you are George.



 :

 ;D  You make me laugh.  You made my laugh in your previous incarnation as Piper.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> Domestic Terrorism: "terrorist acts by individuals or groups within a given country, without foreign direction or involvement"
> International Terrorism: "terrorist acts directed by foreign groups who transcend national boundaries, affecting people in several countries"



Is the term 'Transnational Terrorism' still in use as you see it? 

Oh, also, what source are you using for your definitions?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2008)

If members of the Conservative Government get together a team to play a team of NHL Oldtimers in a Charity hockey tournament, are they not all just "hockey players"?

Is not an IED just a "modernized" term for a booby trap?

Is not an insurgent who kills defenceless civilians not just a terrorist?


----------



## Jack Stratton (18 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If members of the Conservative Government get together a team to play a team of NHL Oldtimers in a Charity hockey tournament, are they not all just "hockey players"?
> 
> Is not an IED just a "modernized" term for a booby trap?
> 
> Is not an insurgent who kills defenceless civilians not just a terrorist?



I assume you did not intend to double negative that last sentence. My short answer to your three semi-rhetorical questions in order are: no, yes, no.

Even that yes is conditional, if IED's are actually really being manufactured through a cottage industry what you have is a non-factory produced land mine and calling it a booby trap hides the nature of the required supply chain, logistics and economics involved. If IED's are truly improvised on the spot from local materials - well there's not much you can do but use detection and mine clearing techniques. On the otherhand, i f there's really a little industry going on, well then I would think that industry would be a target for our forces.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2008)

Jack Stratton

Yes. It was an unintentional double negative........now edited.

At the time of the Charity game, they are only hockey players.

IEDs are improvised, as most booby traps are.  IEDs can be manufactured, and so can booby traps.

Insurgents who don't value human life, nor honour the Laws of War/Armed Conflict, and kill innocent civilians, are terrorists.


----------



## leroi (18 Oct 2008)

I hope someone here will correct me on this but is the Phelph's family brand of superhatred of the entire Western world not terrorism too--i.e. "whackjob" variety of terrorism?

See them in this video attempting to violate/desecrate the funeral of a soldier and incite violence somewhere in the USA:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e9IbtD7Kzrg&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="

I mean, does someone actually have to be killed for an act of terrorism to take place? I would not hesitate to use violence against these people if they dared to upset the funeral of a loved one, friend, or Fallen Comrade. And, many people have strong feelings about this. So anytime they show up to disrupt a funeral, I think there will be a great potential for vigilante violence--if other social controls are lacking, that is.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Oct 2008)

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> I assume you did not intend to double negative that last sentence. My short answer to your three semi-rhetorical questions in order are: no, yes, no.
> 
> Even that yes is conditional, if IED's are actually really being manufactured through a cottage industry what you have is a non-factory produced land mine and calling it a booby trap hides the nature of the required supply chain, logistics and economics involved. If IED's are truly improvised on the spot from local materials - well there's not much you can do but use detection and mine clearing techniques. On the otherhand, i f there's really a little industry going on, well then I would think that industry would be a target for our forces.



Bloody hell Jack, its looking like you're trying to separate fly shyte from pepper here.

Reading your posts in detail has made me feel I am watching a game of ping-pong. Remember, we're all on the same side here.

'Home grown' terrorists are simply that regardless of their goals and intentions. I don't give a fat rats ass if its a pipeline or a train station. HE/HME has no conscience and KILLS, and it looks like those making, setting these devices and supporting their pathetic cause don't either.

Sooner or later someone is going to get killed, even if they are only meaning to damage property. 

IMHO this matter should be dealt with as if it was in a city. Those guilty should be caught, charged and gaoled just like those muslim radicals in TO.

Having seen (and heard) the results of IED/EFP (up close and personal) made from Mil grade HE (along with HE ordnance - arty and mortar rds etc) and the HME stuff which people make, I think I have earned my right to comment here.

Enough! Stop this pissing contest, as I am asking you politely to PLEASE stick to your lane of epertise. Talk is cheap Jack.


OWDU


----------



## Jack Stratton (18 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Jack Stratton
> 
> Yes. It was an unintentional double negative........now edited.
> 
> ...



I can see we're not going to agree on this exactly so I'll take one more swing at this and then agree to disagree. I guess my point is that context plays a part in defining human activities.

A team of politicians playing a charity game are not just hockey players - they are fund raisers and they are selling the public on their "altruism" (real or feigned). If my shinny team played your for beers and glory some time, then we would be nothing but hockey players.

If some one is manufacturing something, particularly if they make more than one of the same device and they are designed for a particular use, then it is not improvised. Unless we're to start saying laser guided bombs are improvised explosive devices because the factory worker making it and the government buying them do not know in advance where/when it will be dropped and it might be used on a target of opportunity.

The third one on the definition of terrorism - I have covered as the general theme of several of my posts on this thread. No need to repeat as you have read them already and I did not yet convince you.

If I still have not convinced you of my view, no worries - disagreement is the basis of good conversation and democracy.

Cheers.

Lets hope the Gravel Road Cops (GRC/RCMP) have the perpetrators of this pipeline thing caught and locked up soon.


----------



## Jack Stratton (19 Oct 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Bloody hell Jack, its looking like you're trying to separate fly shyte from pepper here.
> 
> 
> Enough! Stop this pissing contest, as I am asking you politely to PLEASE stick to your lane of epertise. Talk is cheap Jack.
> ...



Absolutely, we are all on the same side here on the fundamentals I want these guys stopped before they do more than cause a leak. My last post (which after hit after this one of yours) was intended to be my last words on this topic except maybe if they catch the perpetrator(s) because the discussion of what might or might not be defined as terrorism had run its course.

With respect, however, and in full recognition that you have far greater experience than me with explosives (home made or industrially sourced) and the sharp end of conflict, I do take issue with your assumption that I might not know what I am talking about. Chemical energy, toxic gasses, hydrocarbons, pressure piping, fires and explosions of the same, facility siting, risk management, security and safety of said facilities is actually my professional line of work. While I am sure you have a much better idea what a given explosive or ordinance item might do to a a particular target and the people immediately present - I am paid to know what the energy and hazards inside the pipe are and I have seen a few fires, explosions, toxic clouds, burning metal and other such results of LOPC (Loss Of Primary Containment). So far I have been fortunate enough not to be personally involved in the investigation of anything where anyone was killed but I do spend a lot of my time working out how to keep the hazards under control and on the inside of the metal.

In many countries, including ours, the government and industry have not taken much in the way of precautions to prevent someone with explosives creating a Bhopal size disaster out of one of our gas plants, refineries or chemical plants. In my technical opinion the bomb on the outside of a pipe should not be the biggest point of concern, its what happens after the pipe or vessel is cracked open that is really going to do the damage to the public. Unless we are talking about a truly huge amount of HE, the energy in a bomb is pretty small compared to the energy we have available in say a half a million kilograms of butane in a storage sphere or in the 2000 psig hydrocracking reactors used to upgrade bitumen, never mind the storage facilities full of toxic chemicals like cyanides used in commercial chemical processes.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Oct 2008)

Jack, I am njot doubting your civilian credentials.

Civvyworld on a pipeline, and defence on the frontline are two different kettles of fish. SVIED/VBIED/IED/EFP be they HME/ Mil grade HE, or from improved HE fragmentation producing ordnance (not ordinance) are only the initiators which infact produce casuaties, thats where I am trying to make my point, along with the definition of a terr.

Anyone who knowlingly aids, assists, places, or manufactures explosives for the purpose of making a point, regardless of the environment or religious beliefs are guilty.

We can agree that security is everyone's business, and in the short term, hope the bad guys in this case are survailed to catch the bigger fish, then grab all of them when they least expect it. It will come, lets just hope the RCMP have their shyte together on this one, and don't go the way of Mayerthrope like they did not so long ago. One life (a good guy) is too many too lose.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## adaminc (19 Oct 2008)

leroi said:
			
		

> I hope someone here will correct me on this but is the Phelph's family brand of superhatred of the entire Western world not terrorism too--i.e. "whackjob" variety of terrorism?
> 
> See them in this video attempting to violate/desecrate the funeral of a soldier and incite violence somewhere in the USA:
> 
> ...



I do not believe this falls under terrorism, but "hate speech" in Canada, or just Free Speech with the 1st Amendment in the US. They can be arrested for disrupting the service, that's why they have to stay x number of feet back from the service, and they usually do. Most of the family is lawyers or going to school to be a lawyer so they know the law and follow it closely so they can't get busted. But don't worry, they will get there's again someday soon, last year I remember reading about someone suing them for protesting a funeral, and the plaintiff won, and the Westboro Baptist Church had to pay out $10.6 million.

I think for it to be considered terrorism, there has to be violence or threatened violence (on civilians or infrastructure or whatnot) with intent to change government policy somehow, be it local, regional (state/prov), or federal.


----------



## NL_engineer (19 Oct 2008)

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> If some one is manufacturing something, particularly if they make more than one of the same device and they are designed for a particular use, then it is not improvised. Unless we're to start saying laser guided bombs are improvised explosive devices because the factory worker making it and the government buying them do not know in advance where/when it will be dropped and it might be used on a target of opportunity.



Well said laser guided bomb is a conventional munition, designed to be used as an air dropped bomb.  If I take said bomb, and tinker with it, so that it now is activated by a pressure plate; I have made an improvised explosive device.



> An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. They may be partially comprised of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery round, attached to a detonating mechanism.


 LINK (well my source sucks, but it is public)

The same goes for using other Military munitions, and using them in roles that they were not designed to be used in.


Just my educated 2 cents


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Oct 2008)

Didn't I we go through an unnecessarily long debate on this very topic a few years ago?


----------



## Greymatters (19 Oct 2008)

There was at least one last year.  I think both of us made comments on it...


----------



## AmmoTech90 (19 Oct 2008)

NATO definitions from AAP

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40803/post-348731.html#msg348731

and 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37517/post-484979.html#msg484979


----------



## Scott (19 Oct 2008)

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> In many countries, including ours, the government and industry have not taken much in the way of precautions to prevent someone with explosives creating a Bhopal size disaster out of one of our gas plants, refineries or chemical plants. In my technical opinion the bomb on the outside of a pipe should not be the biggest point of concern, its what happens after the pipe or vessel is cracked open that is really going to do the damage to the public. Unless we are talking about a truly huge amount of HE, the energy in a bomb is pretty small compared to the energy we have available in say a half a million kilograms of butane in a storage sphere or in the 2000 psig hydrocracking reactors used to upgrade bitumen, never mind the storage facilities full of toxic chemicals like cyanides used in commercial chemical processes.



+1,000,000!!!

Look around you. Almost wherever you reside in Canada you could be affected by an attack on one of these facilities where "security" is often times a gate. The difference between nuke facilities (and I am not arguing its need there) and energy facilities is stark and ludicrous. Johnny knows he can make way more whiz bang with fuel rods...he gets bored seeing the guards with MP5's and decides to go wipe Sarnia and Port Huron off the map - we still lose. 

Yes, I realize that I have gone away from the issue at hand, this idiot or band of idiots in BC are hitting pipelines and likely for some twisted reason somehow connected to the environment/exploration in their area/H2S (which makes the idea of hitting said pipeline even dumber, by the way) and I am talking about mowing down chemical valley. But the point was raised about security and if I was Johnny with a bit more of a point to prove I'd take a long hard look at this and plan for the future knowing there is not much in my way.

And you can plug and play the Sarnia/Port Huron scenario almost anywhere kids.


----------



## Scott (1 Nov 2008)

Round three: Timmy strikes again.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/10/31/bc-3rd-pipeline-explosion.html#socialcomments

Usual caveats

Another explosion hit an EnCana Corp. sour-gas pipeline in B.C. Friday afternoon, this time near the small community of Tomslake, south of Dawson Creek near the Alberta border, the RCMP said.

"The site of an explosion was discovered at a natural gas wellhead at approximately 12:30 p.m. today," Sgt. Tim Shields said in a news release Friday.

"The site is about 12 kilometres northwest of the community of Tomslake … The explosion appears to have been deliberately detonated and is located in a rural isolated area," he said.

The explosion caused a small gas leak that was quickly contained by EnCana engineers.

The leak did not pose any danger to the public, and there is no report of any injuries, Shields said.

Members of the RCMP Integrated National Security Enforcement Team are at the scene.

    'Right now I am very scared. I don't know what to do. I've been trying to find my family, load them up and get out of here.'— Eric Kuenzl, Tomslake resident

A contract worker discovered the gas leak at the well site and informed operations engineers, EnCana said in a news release Friday.

EnCana has notified the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission about the latest incident.

"Given the two previous vandalism events earlier this month in the region, EnCana immediately contacted the RCMP, and officers are at the scene investigating the cause of the leak and whether it is connected to the previous pipeline explosions in the region," the release said.

It's the third sour-gas pipeline explosion targeting EnCana's infrastructure in northeastern B.C. this month. All three have been in the same general area, but police have not determined whether Friday's blast is linked with the other two, which took place on Oct. 11 and Oct. 16.

A threatening letter was sent to Dawson Creek media prior to the first explosion. The letter called Encana, which is based in Calgary, and other energy companies "terrorists" for expanding deadly gas wells and gave the companies a deadline to shut down their operations.

Tomslake resident Eric Kuenzl said he only heard about the Friday blast from the media.

"Right now I am very scared. I don't know what to do. I've been trying to find my family, load them up and get out of here," Kuenzl told CBC News in a telephone interview.

He said local authorities should have notified nearby residents immediately after the explosion.

"Our own people wouldn't tell us what was going on here and apparently this happened at about 12:30 this afternoon. What took until six o'clock for the world to tell us about what's going on?" Kuenzl said.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2008)

I'll quote the California views on this: "Three strikes and you're out!"  

I think this is progressing well beyond simple vandalism and "criminal".  I am going to stick to calling this "terrorism" and as more bombs are set off, I am not going to change that opinion.  The full weight of the Law should be brought down on these insane people.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Nov 2008)

As the situation develops: 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  (Link in Title)


Police suspect local connection in pipeline blasts 



> CTV.ca News Staff
> 02/11/2008 11:40:33 AM
> 
> *Investigators believe local perpetrators are behind three recent pipeline blasts in northeastern British Columbia, and are concerned about the increasingly "brazen" nature of the attacks on EnCana facilities. *
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (3 Nov 2008)

Hmmm... its an attack on the critical infrastructure of Canada, but its not terrorism?

Sounds like its more of a case of somebody higher up forbidding the use of the 'T' word...


----------



## Love793 (3 Nov 2008)

Its more likely that the Police PR pers is hesitant to use the term for fear of wide spread panic. Not that someone blowing pipe lines in the local community won't cause that enough.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (3 Nov 2008)

Eco-terror has been around since the industrial revolution. One of the first eco-terror groups were the (Luddites of England)"who were know as the "anti-machine people" and wanted to stop the industrial revolution and would blow up steam machines and factories in the UK and sabotage Londons sewer systems. 

Modern day groups like the (ALF) "animal liberation front or the (ELF) "Earth liberation front" have been around since the mid seventies and early eighties and working all around the world, releasing animals from laboratories, burning down large poultry farms, sabotaging major oil fields, pipelines, refineries and torching factories that produce equipment for the oil and gas industry. These groups were also responsible for fire bombing SUV's at dealerships, torching whole condominium subdivisions and tree spiking.

This type of eco-terror has been around much longer than the modern day terrorist that we've come to know as Al-qaeda or the taliban and will be around long after al-qaeda or the taliban have gone the way of the dinosaur.

There are two types of people in this world. The anti-establishment and the pro-establishment. The only difference between the two is the willingness of the one to force it's twisted philosophy on the other, with the belief and conviction in that what they are doing is right.

Eco-terrorism, terrorism. What's the difference? (0)


----------



## Greymatters (3 Nov 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Eco-terror has been around since the industrial revolution. One of the first eco-terror groups were the (Luddites of England)"who were know as the "anti-machine people" and wanted to stop the industrial revolution and would blow up steam machines and factories in the UK and sabotage Londons sewer systems.



No, thats wasnt eco-terrorism - that was about saving their jobs, not saving the environment...


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (3 Nov 2008)

How they went about it was the same difference. You could say the same about the IRA, but again how they went about it classified it as terrorism.

If they wanted to save their jobs, there's other ways of going about it, other than blowing things up.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Nov 2008)

One can only hope one of their bombs go off prematurely, ie when they are putting it together in their factory. I hope that no kids or innocent people are around when and if it does go off.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2008)

Let's see now!  Playing with explosives.  Now playing with guns.  Still being called "vandals".  We truly are a peaceful, naive nation.




http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081218%2fBC_pipeline_vandalism_081218


*Vandals target another B.C. gas pipeline*


*
Vandals have targeted another set of natural gas well sites in northeastern British Columbia, but authorities aren't immediately linking the latest attacks to three earlier bombings to EnCana pipelines in October. *


18/12/2008 11:21:03 AM

ctvbc.ca 

Police say valves were tampered with and shots were fired at well sites operated by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (TSX:CNQ) and Iteration Energy (TSX:ITX). 

RCMP describe the incidents as mischief and say the attacks appear to have happened up to one week ago on wells operated by the two Alberta-based exploration and resource extraction companies. 

The well sites are located in rural areas northeast of Fort St. John, not far from the B.C. Alberta border. There are no homes nearby. 

Members of the Fort St. John serious crimes unit are investigating and say there is no evidence suggesting the incidents are related to the recent targeted attacks on EnCana well sites. 

Fort St. John is located roughly 75 kilometres away from Dawson Creek, the location of the last pipeline bombing. 

Hundreds of large and small pipeline and well site construction companies have holdings within the city. 

Previous bombings 

Three bombings in October aimed at Calgary-based energy giant EnCana's natural gas operations near Dawson Creek are still being investigated by RCMP. 

Earlier this month, police identified and ruled out three people seen on a surveillance tape at a Shoppers Drug Mart postal outlet on Oct. 7 -- the same day a letter threatening the northern B.C. oil and gas sector was sent.

Sgt. Tim Shields said investigators believe EnCana was specifically targeted. 

No one was injured in the blasts -- which occurred on Oct. 12, 16 and 31 -- but two pipelines were damaged and there was a small leak of toxic sour gas at a wellhead. 

The blasts put a spotlight on local concerns over the rapid growth of the industry in the region, particularly projects containing sour gas. 

The gas contains hydrogen sulphide, which can be lethal if breathed even in small amounts. 

A booming industry 

B.C. has more than 4,000 producing oil and gas wells, all in the northeastern part of the province, and the industry has seen massive expansion. 

In 1996, it was worth about $370 million in revenues to the province. By 2006, that figure had jumped to $2.5 billion, mostly related to natural gas projects. 

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## Scott (8 Jan 2010)

Shared with the usual caveats:

http://energeticcity.ca/fortstjohn/news/01/08/10/rcmp-have-encana-bomber-custody-reports



> RCMP have EnCana Bomber in custody; reports
> Friday, January 8, 2010
> 
> UPDATE : AS OF 10:59 a.m.  Unconfirmed reports state the RCMP are currently raiding Wiebo Ludwig's property in Hythe, Alberta.
> ...



Weibo. Surprise, surprise. Hope they nail him and his ilk to the wall this time. Remember Karman.


----------



## Scott (8 Jan 2010)

http://www.canada.com/news/Arrest+made+pipeline+bombings/2420756/story.html



> Arrest made in B.C. pipeline bombings
> 
> Canwest News Service, Edmonton Journal January 8, 2010 1:24 PM
> 
> ...



*Bolding is mine.

Wow. Wiebo really thinks the rest of us are stupid, eh? He was "helping" the RCMP try to identify the bomber and he also made an appeal to the bomber to stop  : I hope he gets thrown ina  dark hole, not a minimum security place, for a long, long time. Fucking asshole.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Jan 2010)

Scott said:
			
		

> I hope he gets thrown ina  dark hole, not a minimum security place, for a long, long time. Fucking asshole.



Are you kidding?  He could get caught red handed blowing up a well and he'd get a mischief under (actually, I have no idea what the pipes are worth.  More than $5000?) and a weapons charge.  Three years probation, ordered restitution and a lifetime weapons prohibition.  Probably would get show caused on his arrest and then he'd get time served.  Oh, sorry, plus a day so that the media fracks off and he can get let out with less attention.  
Why nobody in that community hasn't put a 30-06 slug through his forehead is beyond me.  Surely, there are more than enough hunters in the region?  I would think the RCMP would put all the effort into solving the crime that it would deserve....


----------

