Like the unabomber or timothy mcveigh? I would. I don't see what said terrorism accomplishes in terms of helping the environment. Especially in this political climate it only seems more likely to prompt a patriot act style overreaction from the state that brings us one step closer to the kind of dystopian police state we already seem to be marching towards.

Accelerationism is defo promoted by fascists masquerading as revolutionaries to create what you describe, but McVeigh didn't give a **** about the environment.

Think more along the lines of assassinating oil executives.

I'm not asking about effectiveness. I'm asking about moral condemnation. I'm sure whatever Apocalypse Now Greenpeace crazy eventually suicide bombs an oil pipeline probably won't accomplish anything, but will I consider them MY enemy? Hell no. I'll hope for the best and see if public opinion pleasantly surprises me.

J.R.R. Tolkien said it best.

effectiveness and moral condemnation are not mutually exclusive to me

If you kill a bunch of innocent people for a good cause that goes nowhere... Then to me yes you are worth condemning.

If you are talking about executing oil ceos like frownland said.. once again you can't separate the consequences from the morality. If said assassination results miraculously in either us course correcting or even just causes no significant backlash while maybe some undesirables get what is coming to them.. them that is more compelling to make me sympathize with the terrorist

But i don't see that happening. I see their actions being used as fuel to justify the state and the powers that be to continue to box us in and treat us as caged animals that need to be contained... So in that sense yeah the terrorist is my enemy cause they are leading to consequences that end up hurting me

It's not like i don't think terror can ever be used for a good cause but it's very difficult to actually implement and have the desired results. Like you can argue 9/11 was possibly the most successful act of terror of all time if your aim is to spread global jihad.

Similarly, if your goal is to spread ethnonationalism then the modern day white supremacist terrorists and their predecessors have also been extremely successful... If white identity is what you value

It just seems like most of the time terrorism is highly effective but only for what i consider morally reprehensible causes which is why i default to condemning it despite the motivation. In cases where the terror might be backed up by causes that i might be more sympathetic to, it serves a function more in maintaining order with an iron fist which in retrospect only ends up tarnishing whatever cause it was that motivated it in the first place.

I mean if you believe that we've actually ended history and neoliberalism is inescapable then whatever, but I highly doubt the current power structure will be able to survive what's coming without some level of destabilization. The chickens will come home to roost at some point.

I don't get how you came to that particular strawman version of what i said.

I just answered your question as to whether or not ecoterrorism is worth defending or condemning. I didn't say anything about the end of history or neoliberalism blah blah blah insert lazy online leftist buzzword here.

You seem to have a really retributive approach towards justice when it comes to taking the elite to task. Which is probably the opposite approach of what you'd take towards most forms of criminal justice. So i think what it boils down to is you're actually asking does revenge feel good? To which my answer is yes but that's a different question from whether it's ethical or not.

Targeted assassinations with effective messaging could potentially sway billionaires from environmentally destructive actions on the simple threat of death, plus they can lose the foundation of their labour force if the threat of an attack is tacked onto their working conditions. Even if that doesn't sway them, there's a certain point where the reactive security in response to such attacks would run up against the profit margin.

You're right that the state and media would vilify such actions and use it as justification to take a few more steps toward fascism, but that's the fault of those entities, not of assassination in itself. I'm also not of the mind that fascism is inherently successful.

Similar to the way that you're viewing the outcome of ecoterrorist attacks, Bat likely thinks that you're a proponent of neoliberalism because you're rejecting anything that threatens it, which functionally the same as supporting neoliberal norms.

I wasn't talking to you, you stupid bitch. I was talking to a "nice guy" who generally never takes aggressive stances and asking if at this point he's willing to entertain a more aggressive stance.

I'm not ruling it out but i find that hard to believe. If anyone threatened the multi billion dollar fossil fuel industry via terrorism i think they would become a target of the powers that be so much so that the oil companies themselves would not have to worry at all about the cost of security because they would have the full weight of the US military and other global powers backing them.

I'm very skeptical that you can scare people out of making billions of dollars.


well in my mind the only way to morally rationalize terrorism is to say it serves a greater good... So if the results are that things get worse instead then it doesn't matter to me what your motivations were, it's still condemnable because you made things worse not better. If you wanna say ah but the oil companies/govts/etc have more blood on their hands then fine. That in no way makes the terrorism more justified.

I'm rejecting the idea that terrorism is justified.. if that is the same as rejecting anything that threatens the ever nebulous "neoliberal establishment" then you have already coccus that terrorism is the only thing that could threaten said neoliberalism

And what I'm saying is that if i had any faith at all in the terrorists actually making things better then the question would be much more difficult to answer. I might be more sympathetic if i thought they could. So to me you cannot separate whether or not it's worth condemning from the consequences it has. The consequences are the main reason i oppose terrorists in the first place.