Fire is inherently associated with fear, although a major aspect of the action is the financial cost to the manufacturers and dealers and gaining attention. The aspect of political content may be more subjective. While it may be argued that the vehicles are legal, environmentalists may take a more ethical stance, arguing that was something is legal it is not necessarily mean that it is right. While legislation may force vehicle manufacturers to adopt more fuel-efficient standards for SUVs, it is possible for the manufacturers themselves to choose this path, adopting what the environmentalist may perceive ethical behavior. By creating a cost associated with continuing producing inefficient vehicles there may be a desire to create a fear that more attacks will occur, with the of these attacks possibly creating a motivation for the manufacturers to change, and for dealers to put pressure on manufacturers to change. In effect, environmentalists are trying to force change. In trying to force change, does this make the environmentalists domestic terrorists? It is often cited that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Interestingly, Prof Benizion Netenyahu has stated that by definition a freedom fighter is not capable of undertaking terrorist acts. It is argued that those seeking to force change in the name of freedom have the ethical high ground and they do not purposefully attack innocents. For example, they do not attack small children or passers-by (Netenyahu 18). For terrorists the attack of innocents can be attractive, as it helps to increase the level of terror associated with their actions in order to force change (Netenyahu 9). In this context those who attacked the SUVs may be seen as freedom fighters,...

In their attacks it is only property that is damaged, innocents are not directly harmed, and the attacks are directly on those who are deemed to be perpetrators. So while some of the definitions of terrorism appear to apply, they are also avoiding some of the more insidious characteristics associated with terrorism. However, it often serves the purpose of the media to attach names such as domestic terrorism in order to sensationalize the story and gain the attention of the reader.
The problem is that if these environmental activists are defined as terrorists, then the actions of many others, including government agencies must also be seen in the same light. A good example of this may be seen in the actions of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the way in which they dealt with David Koresh and the Waco incident (Vidal 1). While the media has portrayed David Koresh and the Branch Dividians in an extremely negative light, it is apparent that the government agencies themselves did not follow the correct procedures, attacking the church's compound without the correct warrant, and when the FBI finished off the siege after 51 days, which had included the cutting off of electricity in denying children food, it was in contravention to the Posse Comitatus Act (Vidal 1). The actions which were taken maybe argued is complying with many of the definitions of terrorism as outlined by Schmidt and Joungman, there was violence, there has been a focus on creating fear with the tactics that had been used before the FBI stormed