Now there just being cocky. Hmmm, looks like someone is looking for immortality.

Oh well, sooner or later, he will make a mistake.

You'd figure with all this satelite technology, you'd figure it is possible to know who is doing it.

IMO this is not about fame or immortality. This is a last resort action to being run over by both a major corporation and the governments.

I do not know the facts for sure. Just the way this is playing out says that a local or group of locals really objects to the pipeline and failed to prevent its installation.

Now they will be labeled as terrorists because they are not associated with a recognized government and they are performing acts of war against a sovereign nation.

Of course they should be labeled as terrorists. That's what they are. Duh!

Terrorists attack people... these people, person, s/he, or what ever is engaging in vandalism and not terrorism. We degrade the word terrorism and its meaning if we start using it to describe all types of criminals.

This is vandalism mixed with a political message from someone who feels they have no other venue for their grievance. It looks to me like someone who is fighting a mission that is personal to them in some way. Until they targets peopled locations I don't think we could call it terrorism.

Remember Ludwig? He spent time in jail for something he didn't do. (The shooting ) I thought that these people causing the damage are against sour gas because of the health effects on people and cattle. That is not vandalism or terrorism - - its a rather violent way to oppose something that's killing you. Just like our air quality, no one listens. The dollar is the bottom line so they do more studies instead.

Vandalism would be spray painting the gas lines, wrecking fences, or other similar destruction of property.

When you escalate to exploding substances at sour gas wells, pipelines...that goes far beyond vandalism.

You will not find a court in the land that doesn't see it that way.

Let's not make up definitions, eagleone.

From dictionary.com:

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By that definition it would be terrorism. I still see it as vandalism at this point, although very violent vandalism. I worry that once the word terrorism is used it insinuates future restrictions to all of our rights in order to justifies the means of catching this person or persons.

Until his actions become a serious threat to human life, than I would prefer to see it merely as extreme vandalism regardless of what dictionaries have to say about it.

This is the description of a terrorist that I go by. I think this guy is exactly right in his definition of a terrorist

http://maxkeiser.com/2009/07/16/video-max-keiser-takes-offense-to-goldman-sachs-oligarchy/