Vandals take down KRKO's Towers

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

Hang on here. Just because we all love this business, let's not whore out the "terrorism" term. Over the past eight years, that word has been used way too fast and loose. Yes, this is a crime that should be prosecuted by the Feds, and I hope the guilty get put away for a long time, but let's not get carried away.

may want to take that up with the fed's, network & cable news who all refer to ELF as "eco-terrorists".

 

[the brakes]

from

Hang on here. Just because we all love this business, let's not whore out the "terrorism" term. Over the past eight years, that word has been used way too fast and loose. Yes, this is a crime that should be prosecuted by the Feds, and I hope the guilty get put away for a long time, but let's not get carried away.

from the site wordiq.com:

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians. Acts of terror against military targets tend to blend into a strategy of guerrilla warfare. However, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

this act seems either political or ideological to me

 

[kyliebastel]

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.

Not to apologize for the vandals, however ...

Destruction of life is violence. Destruction of property is not violence.

The definition you use has two qualifiers for a positive result:

(1) the act is violent, AND,
(2) the act is done to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal

The act was not violent. The first qualifier is not met.

Therefore, the act was not terrorism.

 

[swhyde1980]

Going off the course of the current conversation here.... Were those towers actively broadcasting at the time they were brought down?  If so, how did the vandals not get electrocuted or get any kind of consequences from the RF, by having the excavator come in contact with the towers (since they are AM towers)?  If they were only daytime towers that they brought down, they obviously did their research, before going on their mission of destruction.

 

[bossbill]

Dictionary.com
vi⋅o⋅lence  /ˈvaɪələns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vahy-uh-luhns] Show IPA
–noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

Synonyms:
1. might, power, impact, fury.


The eco-terrorists (self-described as I recall) did perpetrate an act of violence. and it was done to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal.

This is not mere vandalism. This is destruction of private property. The penalties for such wanton acts should be severe. It is unfortunate that the criminals survived.

 

[KYYX_fan]

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.

Destruction of life is violence. Destruction of property is not violence.

The definition you use has two qualifiers for a positive result:

(1) the act is violent, AND,
(2) the act is done to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal

The act was not violent. The first qualifier is not met. Therefore, the act was not terrorism.

Kylie, you are completely wrong.

First, where do you get the definition that violence is a destruction of life? Punching someone in the face is violence, but does not destroy life. Second, if we go to a common and basic definition of "violence" from Webster, we get as one definition: "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force." This act clearly meets that standard.

Second, Luddism (rebellion against technological progress) is an ideology and the destruction of the towers is a step toward that goal. Also, you could say that taking action when the law isn't on your side or suppressing free speech by knocking down broadcast towers are political acts.

And we don't even get into the fact that the FBI (and much of the rational public) categorize ELF as eco-terrorists or just plain terrorists. Since this act is no different than setting fire to homes or destroying a business, common usage would place this as an act of terrorism.

A protest banner on the tower or spraypainting the fence are "vandalism." What they did was terrrorism.

 

[avtosalon]

I remember in the early 80's a base of a tower was blown up in Lafayette, Indiana.

Apparently listeners were upset that an FM station flipped from Album Rock to Top 40, and there was not another Rock station for listeners to change over to.

I tried to find information on the internet, but could not find anything.

 

[kyliebastel]

rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.

The towers "died"? Contemporary theories of political violence do not recognize the ability to do violence to a non-living thing. You can damage a non-living thing, you can not commit violence against a non-living thing.

This is not mere vandalism. This is destruction of private property. The penalties for such wanton acts should be severe. It is unfortunate that the criminals survived.

Vandalism is destruction of private property. This is ridiculous, testosterone driven chest-thumping to suggest there should be a death penalty for vandalism.

Kylie, you are completely wrong.

You are wrong that I am wrong.

First, where do you get the definition that violence is a destruction of life? Punching someone in the face is violence, but does not destroy life. Second, if we go to a common and basic definition of "violence" from Webster, we get as one definition: "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force." This act clearly meets that standard.

There are many meanings of violence as there are many meanings of cry (e.g. [1] to sob, [2] to yell out, etc.). Applying every definition of violence to the meaning of the word as it defines terrorism is ridiculous to the extreme.
You can not do violence to a non-biological thing.

Second, Luddism (rebellion against technological progress) is an ideology and the destruction of the towers is a step toward that goal. Also, you could say that taking action when the law isn't on your side or suppressing free speech by knocking down broadcast towers are political acts.

I wasn't, nor do I, debate any of that. (Though, as I've previously noted - I'd hardly describe the decaying old nostalgic, archaic AM/FM radio as 'technological progress' - LOL! For all we know the vandals could have been pro-technological progress and were trying to speed it up by getting rid of the dying radio industry a bit faster.)

And we don't even get into the fact that the FBI (and much of the rational public) categorize ELF as eco-terrorists or just plain terrorists. Since this act is no different than setting fire to homes or destroying a business, common usage would place this as an act of terrorism.

Setting fire to a home or destroying a business is not violence; unless it is done with the intent or effect of injury upon people, animals or plants. It is certainly arson and should be punished severely because it is a reckless act of endangerment, but it's not violence unless an intent to injure exists or until an effect of injury is caused.

 

[Bongwater]

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.

Not to apologize for the vandals, however ...

Destruction of life is violence. Destruction of property is not violence.

The definition you use has two qualifiers for a positive result:

(1) the act is violent, AND,
(2) the act is done to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal

The act was not violent. The first qualifier is not met.

Therefore, the act was not terrorism.

Granted, an attack on property may not fit the the literal definition of violence and thus, terrorism. But if it's YOUR property and the perps go around shooting their mouths off about it on the internet, I am quite certain you would feel....ummm.....violated. Perhaps terrorized?

Think of it this way, let's say some members of a street gang busted into your place. They ransack and destroy as much as they can get, leaving graffiti on the walls, etc. Your neighbor calls and you come FLYING home to find your most valued possessions ruined.

OK, you now know which gang did it. But the gang is pretty well organized, the cops take in some suspects, but you also know it's a pretty violent gang and they're known for dealing with snitches in pretty brutal ways. Your sense of fear is off the chart (that's what terrorists do), you get alarms and private security (at your expense - IF you can afford it.) The legal process is slow and the defense has got one stonewall after another they throw between you and justice. Believe me, it can drive you crazy. You may even have to take prescription anxiety drugs to deal with it all.

So on a personal level, would that be terrorism?

Because it does fit the terrorism definition in one respect: The idea was to intimidate Mr. Skotdal personally through extreme and unwarranted destruction of his property. (Personally, I'd tell Earth First to suck it......)

You see, the 9/11 hijackers just wanted to knock down the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and the White House or Capitol and whatever lives were taken along the way was just "collateral damage". The real goal was to intimidate us through the destruction of some of the biggest landmarks of the nation, putting on a show to scare us all back into the dark ages with the rest of these creeps.

As history has illustrated, it didn't work. Neither will this...........

 

[DanStrassberg]

Going off the course of the current conversation here.... Were those towers actively broadcasting at the time they were brought down? If so, how did the vandals not get electrocuted or get any kind of consequences from the RF, by having the excavator come in contact with the towers (since they are AM towers)? If they were only daytime towers that they brought down, they obviously did their research, before going on their mission of destruction.

If the act was committed during the daytime, I believe that only one of the four towers was powered. From the reports I have read, two of the towers were toppled. If the perpetrators knew only that just one tower was live, wouldn't they have had a 75% chance of not suffering injury from the RF while committing their destructive act? At night, on the other hand, all four towers would have been live. The information about which towers were energized at what time is a matter of public record and is readily available to anybody. The perpetrators would not have had to be especially knowledgeable to steer clear of personal injury--at least if they were able to access the site during the daytime.

 

[Andrew Skotdal]

I'd like to thank all of you for your kind words of support. I'm confident that the FBI will be able to solve this act of vandalism and I'm grateful for their involvement. Though it can't be ruled out, it's speculative and premature to jump to conclusions about ELF. It's been a long day, and the outpouring of emails, texts, and phone calls has been overwhelmingly supportive. The two towers and the components with them are a total loss. I'm proud of the fact that our backup systems worked and we never went off the air. We have some work ahead of us, but the bright side is that we're now (again) part of the local economic stimulus plan and we'll be employing some good people in the near future. Perhaps I'll have a chance to meet many of you someday, and some of you I already know. Tune in for our legal IDs over the weekend (if you can hear us to the south!). We'll have more information on the air next week. Thanks again.

 

[coppersmom]

this is obviously not a good thing..but ldradio is on to something..in the past ..most notably where structures housing animal experiments were vandalized the feds..put out the unproven notion that it was elf... and ""possible elf writings" were found on the walls etc..it's a great way to stoke up terrorism fears and red alerts..without further proof..there are lots of reasons why someon would want to fell a broadcast tower...and blame it on ""ecoterror""...or it could be actually eco-terror...

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

Andy ... your attitude constantly amazes me. Never picking the easy road and sticking with the plan despite some challenges that would make lesser folks give up much much sooner. Hang in there. We're ALL (maybe not kylie?) behind you.

Dan ... 3a was strike hour so hope that answers your questions about towers.

Kylie ... if you don't like this party, you're free to go home. Otherwise the rants about how useless radio is getting old on a board CLEARLY dedicated to radio discussions (generally in the positive). The whole "your future is useless" is not really a basis for moving the discussion forward RATIONALLY, at least.


...and the discussion about ELF/maybe NOT ELF is probably being swayed by their "press office" acknowledging the act is indeed theirs'. I also suspected neighbors at first who tried to frame the terror group, but many of them have been on-air distancing themselves from this extreme reaction. It's comforting, at least, to see that no one of sound mind endorses this kind of expression. ELF has shown a very active presence based in greater SnoHo county (+ Woodinvolle) ... so HOPEFULLY each act they do makes it easier to find trace evidence and narrow down their list of suspects.

 

[dunno]

Smells like local axe grinders. As you all know many others AM's with much higher wattage.
Seems to me ELF would be going after the big fish (corp powerhouses) not mom and pops?
]Good luck Andy!

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

By the way...another (east coast) radio tower toppled same morning at 1am. In their case, wires cut to drop one of five towers in an array. That one not (yet?) attributed to any group.

 

[kyliebastel]

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal.

Not to apologize for the vandals, however ...

Destruction of life is violence. Destruction of property is not violence.

The definition you use has two qualifiers for a positive result:

(1) the act is violent, AND,
(2) the act is done to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal

The act was not violent. The first qualifier is not met.

Therefore, the act was not terrorism.

Granted, an attack on property may not fit the the literal definition of violence and thus, terrorism. But if it's YOUR property and the perps go around shooting their mouths off about it on the internet, I am quite certain you would feel....ummm.....violated. Perhaps terrorized?

Think of it this way, let's say some members of a street gang busted into your place. They ransack and destroy as much as they can get, leaving graffiti on the walls, etc. Your neighbor calls and you come FLYING home to find your most valued possessions ruined.

OK, you now know which gang did it. But the gang is pretty well organized, the cops take in some suspects, but you also know it's a pretty violent gang and they're known for dealing with snitches in pretty brutal ways. Your sense of fear is off the chart (that's what terrorists do), you get alarms and private security (at your expense - IF you can afford it.) The legal process is slow and the defense has got one stonewall after another they throw between you and justice. Believe me, it can drive you crazy. You may even have to take prescription anxiety drugs to deal with it all.

So on a personal level, would that be terrorism?

Because it does fit the terrorism definition in one respect: The idea was to intimidate Mr. Skotdal personally through extreme and unwarranted destruction of his property. (Personally, I'd tell Earth First to suck it......)

You see, the 9/11 hijackers just wanted to knock down the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and the White House or Capitol and whatever lives were taken along the way was just "collateral damage". The real goal was to intimidate us through the destruction of some of the biggest landmarks of the nation, putting on a show to scare us all back into the dark ages with the rest of these creeps.

As history has illustrated, it didn't work. Neither will this...........

Bongwater - in your message you:

(1) said even gang violence, like strong-arm robbery, muggings, etc. are "terrorism" (based on this increasingly loosey-goosey definition perhaps we could extend terrorism to auto theft, larceny and reckless driving, too)

(2) equated the destruction of two pieces of PROPERTY - two radio towers for a low-rated AM radio station in DMA 14 - to the death of 3,000 people and destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11

You'll have to excuse me if I don't compose a more erudite retort, I think your assertions will stand and fall on their own merits.

On to a different topic - who was responsible?

(a) Local Homeowners: I find it hard to believe that a local homeowner in a remote part of Snohomoish County is of the age bracket that they'd be likely to compose a sign that read "WASSUP SNO CTY?"

(b) ELF: First of all, there is no such thing as "ELF", there are independent actors who occasionally use the name "ELF." "ELF" doesn't exist as such as any kind of group with a leader, organizational structure, etc. The fact that Jason Crawford at the ELF Press Office has claimed responsibility by ELF is fairly unconvincing. Also note the sign did not say "Love ELF" it said "ELF Love."

(c) Kids: This seems most likely. Some rambunctious local teenagers - possibly children of area homeowners - after a night of drinking decide to take down the towers. A bulldozer for co-related or unrelated construction is in the area with the keys in the ignition ... as construction crews usually tend to leave them there since it's difficult to make a getaway in a bulldozer ... they take it and topple the towers.

 

[TVradioguru]

But enough of the banter with juveniles and back to the topic at hand...

I read this morning that another tower vandalism occurred just prior to the KRKO incident. One can't help but wonder if all the coverage of the KRKO incident will spur the nuts out there to commit similar acts of vandalism:

http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a8_5tower.7011612sep05,0,7619214.story

Last Friday I sent a memo out to all of our GM's to expedite either the hiring of security guards at our transmitter sites, or installation of security cameras specifically aimed at the guy-wires and base of towers.

 

[AQH]

may want to take that up with the fed's, network & cable news who all refer to ELF as "eco-terrorists".

The problem with the over-use of the words "terrorism" and/or "terrorists" is far from limited to this board.

 

[TVradioguru]

may want to take that up with the fed's, network & cable news who all refer to ELF as "eco-terrorists".

The problem with the over-use of the words "terrorism" and/or "terrorists" is far from limited to this board.

Terrorism is so much more dramatic of a term than vandalism. And in this world, drama always trumps accurate information.

 

[djdan]

Let me add my support for Andrew and the team at KRKO. Whether terrorists or neighbors that act has had the opposite effect, creating support for a local businessman. I remember when Street of Dreams homes were burned a couple of years ago in an act of stupidity. These were green homes made of recycled material. So just when the building industry got on the environmental bandwagon, the homes get torched by ELF affecting local builders. Now a local broadcaster, one of the last community broadcasters, gets attacked. Whether ELF, whether neighbors or just vandals: it is senseless and hurts some good local people.