Oink inhibit hi feb fhibvheifbihfvebuirebvqiubfrhwibhifwrbhiefwbhifwbrhifrw uhvrb. Hi hb h. He. H. J. J k k k k k k m m. M k m k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k kk k k k k k k kk m m m mm m m m m m m k k m m, m m mm. , m, m mm. M m
Okay, let's pretend like "ecoterrorism" is an actual thing, even though it isn't. Although one man's freedom fighter is often another man's terrorist, I think we should all agree that "ecoterrorism" would be very bad. It would probably do more damage to the environment than good, making it a threat.
Yes, ecoterrorism is a legitimate threat. There is no reason that any acts of violence should be targeted, no matter the reason. There are many ways that an environmental group can try to fight for their beliefs, but threatening or performing violent acts out of those beliefs are unacceptable. While things may need to be done to actually protect natural resources, there are much better ways to handle it than ecoterroism.
Ecoterrorism is a very legitimate threat and probably one that is the most destructive in nature. Ecoterrorism can not only effect a small group of people like a suicide bomber would, but can effect a very large community as well as generations to come. We need to protect ourselves from it.
I believe eco-terrorism is more of a legitimate threat, rather than a necessary evil. I do not believe it should be considered a necessary evil because violence generally doesn't further initiatives. I'm sure there are many people that agree and I don't honestly believe it's a legitimate threat either, because most people know you can get further without violence.
Eco-terrorism is not necessary and it is a scourge to society. There is no way to justify terrorism, even if it is defending something like the environment. Rather, people who seek to protect the environment should do so in a peaceful way. We live in a free society where it is possible to protest and petition the government.