On tuesday, October 11th, a group of only 9 activists had shut down 5 national pipelines that carried tar sand oils from Canada. The quick explanation is that the extraction, transport, and maintenance process releases VOC's and other toxins into the environment. All of the people involved, including the film crew, were arrested.

They are not the first group of people to take extreme action. There have been groups who brake into labs, releasing animals from factory farms, throwing paint on fur coats, and doing plenty of other socially unacceptable things.

Yet, did you know that some of these people are labeled as terrorists? Eco-terrorism is now a term used by the FBI. Check it out: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/t...

This is just a link to the reaction of the label: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-protest-...

I would like to pose the question on the validity of calling some these people terrorists.

The government even has a special program set up for it called "Operation backfire". It is involved in the investigation of what the government labels "eco-terrorism".

Being from Long Island, NY and living through 9/11 I am disgusted that the government would call these people terrorists. Do I condole their actions? Absolutely not. Do I think they are on the same level as those who took hundreds of lives and gave people a lifetime of PTSD? Absolutely not.

Watching the video on the FBI website, there was a sound blurb that said Overaker's arsons had put the lives of first responders in danger and causing over 45 million in damages.

But did she put civilians in danger, like those of 9/11? I do not condole these actions but either way first responders are always faced with some type of danger. That is their job and as a civilian I could not be more grateful to them. I just believe it was a poor sound byte to use when trying to make a point.

These people are on the same list that Osama Bin Laden was on. Are all of these really attacks? What defines an attack?

Plenty of people just go to prison for arson charges.

However, there are some understandable cases for the term 'terrorist". Daniel Andreas San Diego was allegedly involved with two bombings, one in the San Fransisco area and another in Pleasanton.

But why is there an eco-terrorism label? That just puts a negative connotation on the entire movement.

As much as I do not agree with their actions, I see their point. Humans are killing themselves and the planet. Some organizations/practices constantly kill animals for sport, pollute habitats, dirty the air, suck the soil dry of nutrients, and so much worse. There is a portion of people out there that are taking away the right to life. It may be in a slow fashion, but it's happening.

What about all the island nations that can't grow crops because the salt water levels have got into their main water supplies?

What about all the people living in cities that are developing asthma or heart disease?

What about the intrinsic value of life?

What about the kids who want to play at the beach but they can't because the water has garbage in it?

What about those who have been pulled into child slavery to support the big industries which are also polluting our air?

Once again, I do not approve of violent means of action. However, the realities above are more terrifying than Overaker and Dibee.