Piper said:
Drunk drivers don't have a political or ideological agenda, neither do serial killers/rapists.
It's obvious that whoever did this had an agenda (reference the letters sent to local media before the first attack). They are committing an attack to further their group's political and environmental goals.
Terrorism can be summed up as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." This 'group' or person sent a threatening letter, outlined what they were going to attack (gas lines) and why (threatened the environment, land use rights etc) and then bombed the pipelines. You tell me how this DOESN'T look like terrorism.
I don't say this is absolutely not terrorism, I just said it might not be and I think it is too early to tell. I'll give you a few points that I think point to a local person who is upset with gas activity in affecting their property rather than a terrorist organization targetting Canada's energy sector:
First: Attacks against oil and gas facilities are not new in Canada, I'm sure you remember Wiebo Ludwig who, along with his family/clan/religious sect were involved in a previous conflict with EnCana in the Grande Praire region of AB. Wiebo is more what you would call a "nut case" than a terrorist - and while he and his little enclave had an ideology they really form too small a group to call it a terrorist organization unless by the same standard we want to label local street gangs the same way. In addition we find in any given year certain amount of sabotage and other such issues, bullet marks on pipes, valves opened to release gas and so on. This is not a unique event, a new event or substantially different than things that have happened before, other than the higher level of media coverage.
Second: A threatening letter is not so uncommon either, one local refinery had a bomb threat the other day - turned out not to be a terror thing, just a idiot labourer who had used up his sick days and did not want to come in for work. (I am not kidding this happens in the civilian world).
Third: The target was remote and not likely to produce good media coverage. If someone really wanted to get good value from a bomb and a gas pipeline they would pick a main transmission pipeline as it enters a major population centre. Or they would pick one of the sour fields up wind of Calgary. Terrorism is about coverage in the media to generate the result.
Fourth: Only the facilities of one company were targetted, and its the same company Wiebo had it in for.
Fifth: The letter went to a local news agency only. If for some reason a terrorist decided to commit an act like this why target the teeny tiny local press only and not also send a copy of the threat to the Globe and Mail or the National Post or CTV?
Sixth: Bombs are not the exclusive territory of terrorists, during the biker wars in Quebec the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine used bombs against each other and terrified the public in so doing. While these outlaw bikers engage in criminal activities, they really are not terrorists unless we are going to stretch the meaning of that word all out of reality. And yes you can argue they are ideologically motivated: they believe in the right to sell drugs and profit by it - a trait they share with the IRA (terrorist) and the Taliban (insurgents/terrorists), despite this commonality of business activities we do not think of Biker Gangs as terrorists. Though trying to make a terror charge stick to them would be great fun!
On the other side of the argument:
The combination of threats, media contacts, bombings and so on do look quite a lot like a terrorist's modus operandi.
When we no more, and the RCMP get their man or men - we'll find out what's going on.
Cheers,