Greenpeace Peru Incident

mt99 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:30 am

Why would anyone donate a single dollar to these ass hats?

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/12/ho...ost-sacred-places-in-the-americas/

WarRI1 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:36 am

Quoting mt99 (Thread starter):
Why would anyone donate a single dollar to these ass hats?

The most damage ever done to their image. Pure Stupidity.

aloges · Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:03 am

Quoting mt99 (Thread starter):
Why would anyone donate a single dollar to these ass hats?

Perhaps they might donate because Greenpeace still work against practises that pose serious threats to the very environment that people depend on, such as the destructive extraction and wasteful use of fossil fuels. But hey, let's just throw out the baby with the bath water and be done with Greenpeace, right?

WestJet747 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:24 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 2):
Perhaps they might donate because Greenpeace still work against practises that pose serious threats to the very environment that people depend on, such as the destructive extraction and wasteful use of fossil fuels. But hey, let's just throw out the baby with the bath water and be done with Greenpeace, right?

There are scores of other environmental protection groups out there who are able to accomplish many of the same goals as Greenpeace without the extreme measures that end up biting them in the ass. Further, those same groups probably don't exile their prominent members for questioning the motives of the organization, a la Patrick Moore. These groups are far more deserving of the donations.

Greenpeace has been a very ugly organization for a very long time, well before this Peru incident, which is why it comes as no surprise that they did what they did to the Nazca Lines.

BMI727 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:29 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 2):
Perhaps they might donate because Greenpeace still work against practises that pose serious threats to the very environment that people depend on, such as the destructive extraction and wasteful use of fossil fuels.

Those Al Qaeda training camps were great for promoting health and physical fitness among young Muslims.

Mike89406 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:23 am

When I was in the Navy we pulled into Hobart Tasmania, and Greenpeace was waiting in protest over our Aircraft Carrier. I believe this is the same organization Paul Watson was part of until he went on his own to go after whale hunters.

L-188 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:19 am

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 3):
Greenpeace has been a very ugly organization for a very long time, well before this Peru incident

They stopped being an environmental group a long time ago. They are simply are sales and marketing organization now, for the profits of their leadership

Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 5):
I believe this is the same organization Paul Watson was part of until he went on his own to go after whale hunters.

Yup and that is why the two groups are not on speaking terms

aloges · Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:36 am

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 3):
These groups are far more deserving of the donations.

It's one thing to prefer one organisation over another, but quite a different thing accusing everyone who gives money to the one you don't prefer of supporting "ass hats".

I'm not exactly fond of Greenpeace either, but smear campaigns and insults don't help anyone.

pvjin · Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:10 pm

Quoting mt99 (Thread starter):

Well, perhaps because if the rise of Co2 emissions doesn't stop soon in a couple of centuries there might be no humans left to observe this sacred place. If temps rise by let's say 5 to 10 degrees C things will get extremely messy worldwide.

But of course Republicans don't have to worry about that, after all according to them and their oil industry funded scientists the planet isn't warming.

[Edited 2014-12-14 04:15:00]

BMI727 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:21 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 7):
It's one thing to prefer one organisation over another, but quite a different thing accusing everyone who gives money to the one you don't prefer of supporting "ass hats".

A guy talking loudly on his cell phone is an ass hat. Greenpeace and the like are something else.

PHX787 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:36 pm

I understand the need to save the whales and whatnot but seriously. Greenpeace is way too extremist. and irrational. dumbasses.

aloges · Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:36 pm

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 10):
Greenpeace is way too extremist. and irrational.

That depends complete on your/one's definition of "too extreme and irrational", I for instance think that sinking the "Rainbow Warrior" was extreme and irrational, as were the tests that Greenpeace was opposing.

How, then, are they supposed to act against e.g. multi-billion Dollar/Euro/Yen corporations with perfect connections to the high and mighty all over the world?

L410Turbolet · Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:17 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
Well, perhaps because if the rise of Co2 emissions doesn't stop soon in a couple of centuries there might be no humans left to observe this sacred place.

Whatabout the carbon footprint of carrying out their stupid antics?

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
That depends complete on your/one's definition of "too extreme and irrational"

Their stance on anything remotely involving nuclear is a fine example of what would pass as generally accepted definition of "hysterical" and "irrational". http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/

mt99 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:56 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 8):
But of course Republicans don't have to worry about that, after all according to them and their oil industry funded scientists the planet isn't warming.

Wait what? This is not a political thing. Its about Greenpeace acting like idiots. I am not a Republican, i believe in Global Warming and think that Greenpeace is idiotic.

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
How, then, are they supposed to act against e.g. multi-billion Dollar/Euro/Yen corporations with perfect connections to the high and mighty all over the world?

By ruining the Nazca Lines? Seriously?

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
I for instance think that sinking the "Rainbow Warrior" was extreme and irrational, as were the tests that Greenpeace was opposing

So counter something irrational with something more irrational? Where in the world does that make sense?

Mir · Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:08 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
How, then, are they supposed to act against e.g. multi-billion Dollar/Euro/Yen corporations with perfect connections to the high and mighty all over the world?

Not by destroying ancient art sites. I'm pretty sure the corporations don't give a damn about those, so all they've really done is pissed off people who were sympathetic to their general goals.

-Mir

pvjin · Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:11 pm

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 12):
Their stance on anything remotely involving nuclear is a fine example of what would pass as generally accepted definition of "hysterical" and "irrational". http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/

Yeah, got to admit that their attitude towards nuclear energy seems stupid. In real world renewable forms of energy aren't going to be cheap and effective enough to replace dirty coal power any time soon, thus nuclear is definitely the way to go for next century or two. Environmental groups do more harm than good by opposing it.

einsteinboricua · Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:59 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 7):
It's one thing to prefer one organisation over another, but quite a different thing accusing everyone who gives money to the one you don't prefer of supporting "ass hats".

Hahaha if only this argument could be used in real life

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
How, then, are they supposed to act against e.g. multi-billion Dollar/Euro/Yen corporations with perfect connections to the high and mighty all over the world?

Ruining the Nazca Lines is not the way to go. You don't destroy or tamper with whatever relics are left. We condemned the Taliban when the Buddhas of Bamiyan were blown apart and when extremists destroyed ancient areas in Timbuktu; Greenpeace, however honorable its purpose is, just earned a spot next to these other groups.

WestJet747 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:39 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 7):
It's one thing to prefer one organisation over another, but quite a different thing accusing everyone who gives money to the one you don't prefer of supporting "ass hats".

I'm not exactly fond of Greenpeace either, but smear campaigns and insults don't help anyone.

Except that it's entirely merited in this scenario. The people that donate to Greenpeace either have done no research on what they're donating to, or they just have no moral compass or sense of rationale.

Ethical environment groups must be fuming over this.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
A guy talking loudly on his cell phone is an ass hat. Greenpeace and the like are something else.

Criminals? Bullies?

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
How, then, are they supposed to act against e.g. multi-billion Dollar/Euro/Yen corporations with perfect connections to the high and mighty all over the world?

Greenpeace received €282M in donations last year, and that doesn't even include government subsidy. I got that figure right from the 2013 Annual Report published on their international website.

This is an incredibly wealthy organization who can afford to lobby. This is an incredibly wealthy organization who can develop far-reaching and complex viral marketing campaigns that don't involve thug tactics.

But no, they choose to engage in activities like the one at the Nazca Lines.

aloges · Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:07 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
How, then, are they supposed to act against e.g. multi-billion Dollar/Euro/Yen corporations with perfect connections to the high and mighty all over the world?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 13):
By ruining the Nazca Lines? Seriously?

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Not by destroying ancient art sites.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
Ruining the Nazca Lines is not the way to go.

I did ask an open question, not whether or not they should engage in publicity right next to a delicate ancient monument. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a fan of this particular stunt.

All I'm saying is that you can't do a thing against, say, an oil company without going big.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
Greenpeace received €282M in donations last year

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
This is an incredibly wealthy organization who can afford to lobby.

€282 million does not make you an "incredibly wealthy organisation" if you're up against behemoths in various industries who make billions in profits every year. So you need all the publicity that you can get.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
that doesn't even include government subsidy

What sort of government subsidy?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
But no, they choose to engage in activities like the one at the Nazca Lines.

They have realised it was a horrible idea and apologised in public. I haven't followed the story beyond that and an apology doesn't make things right, but it's a start. In any case, Tony Hayward is back in the game as well, so you needn't really do much more than apologise and take a hiatus.

RussianJet · Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:51 pm

This is, unfortunately, typical. Greenpeace could be doing so much good, but instead they seem intent on focusing on idiotic stunts then whining about the consequences or having to apologise abjectly and look like complete fools. Time to get responsible about pushing the green agenda, unless you want to start being lumped in with other extremists and targeted accordingly. I understand the frustration, but this nonsense has to be reined in.

D L X · Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:15 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 2):
Perhaps they might donate because Greenpeace still work against practises that pose serious threats to the very environment that people depend on, such as the destructive extraction and wasteful use of fossil fuels. But hey, let's just throw out the baby with the bath water and be done with Greenpeace, right?

WTF?

In your analogy, which is the baby, and which is the bathwater? Are you actually saying we should give Greenpeace a pass because along with their repeated and incredibly criminal activity, they occasionally advocate for good? That's like condoning terrorist organizations because every now and then they feed the poor. Obviously, that's asinine.

There are other advocates for the environment that do not condone this repulsive behavior, and they're not hard to find. It is absolutely within bounds to condemn Greenpeace's whole existence, especially seeing as how they are now doing more harm than good.

Quoting aloges (Reply 7):
I'm not exactly fond of Greenpeace either

Really? You're really going out of your way to defend them.

aloges · Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:31 am

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 19):
Greenpeace could be doing so much good

Bearing in mind that they define themselves as "an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour", what do you think they should be doing?

I keep hearing "Greenpeace bad, Greenpeace stupid, Greenpeace criminal!" but very little about the reasons why people consider them that.

CplKlinger · Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:56 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 21):
I keep hearing "Greenpeace bad, Greenpeace stupid, Greenpeace criminal!" but very little about the reasons why people consider them that.

Know how I know you DRTFA? They possibly permanently damaged a 1,500 year old site with their actions. An area that even there president of Peru cannot enter without special permission and equipment. They broke Peruvian law to do so. Hence, Greenpeace = criminals.

BMI727 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:22 am

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
Criminals? Bullies?

Terrorists.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 19):
Greenpeace could be doing so much good, but instead they seem intent on focusing on idiotic stunts then whining about the consequences or having to apologise abjectly and look like complete fools.

You know that ISIS bunch wouldn't be so bad if they'd just, you know, not do everything that they do.

Quoting aloges (Reply 21):
I keep hearing "Greenpeace bad, Greenpeace stupid, Greenpeace criminal!" but very little about the reasons why people consider them that.

People consider them that because that's precisely what they are.

D L X · Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:11 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 21):
Bearing in mind that they define themselves as "an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour", what do you think they should be doing?

Not committing crimes.

Quoting aloges (Reply 21):
I keep hearing "Greenpeace bad, Greenpeace stupid, Greenpeace criminal!" but very little about the reasons why people consider them that.

Dude! They just trampled on a UNESCO world heritage site! That's a crime.

RussianJet · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:41 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 21):

Bearing in mind that they define themselves as "an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour", what do you think they should be doing?

I'll tell you what they shouldn't be doing - and that's trashing historical treasures or going around the world expecting to act with impunity, breaking laws willy-nilly. In this instance, surely at least you'd agree they've caused themselves very serious reputational damage?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):
You know that ISIS bunch wouldn't be so bad if they'd just, you know, not do everything that they do.

What a peculiarly irrelevant comment.

PHX787 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:48 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 11):
That depends complete on your/one's definition of "too extreme and irrational", I for instance think that sinking the "Rainbow Warrior" was extreme and irrational, as were the tests that Greenpeace was opposing.

Desecrating sacred lands is extreme and irrational.

Rappeling between the P&G towers is extreme and irrational.

SImply anything they do is pretty damn extreme.

aloges · Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:37 pm

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 22):
Know how I know you DRTFA?

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 22):
They possibly permanently damaged a 1,500 year old site with their actions.

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
Dude! They just trampled on a UNESCO world heritage site!

Apparently, no. They did damage the surface right next to the actual site, which is bad enough and certainly a reason for a lawsuit, but they did probably not damage the hummingbird itself. How do I know that? Because I read not just "TFA", but also looked at the pictures and some other sources.

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 22):
They broke Peruvian law to do so. Hence, Greenpeace = criminals.

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
That's a crime.

I'm impressed. While the Peruvians are still about to take legal action, you two have already reached a verdict. That's quick - knee-jerk quick.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 25):
surely at least you'd agree they've caused themselves very serious reputational damage?

Yes, of course, and I have already said as much:

Quoting aloges (Reply 18):
They have realised it was a horrible idea and apologised in public. I haven't followed the story beyond that and an apology doesn't make things right, but it's a start.

It was a stupid idea, carried out irresponsibly and showed an astonishing amount of cultural tone-deafness. Everyone who has ever taken an interest in the Nazca lines must be aware that they're highly delicate and that visitors used to cause damage until they were declared a restricted area.

By the way, I fully expect the perpetrators to face time in a Peruvian prison, or at least pay significant fines. But this doesn't mean that Greenpeace is a criminal (let alone "terrorist") organisation.

Quoting aloges (Reply 7):
I'm not exactly fond of Greenpeace either, but smear campaigns and insults don't help anyone.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Really? You're really going out of your way to defend them.

So in your world, defending someone or something means that I must like them/it?

D L X · Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:00 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
Apparently, no. They did damage the surface right next to the actual site, which is bad enough and certainly a reason for a lawsuit, but they did probably not damage the hummingbird itself.

So, to you, it's okay if they trample the site as long as they don't trample the actual lines constituting the hummingbird itself?

I mean, why bother having laws then?

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
How do I know that? Because I read not just "TFA", but also looked at the pictures and some other sources.

Easy there cowboy. You're not the only one that reads.

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
I'm impressed. While the Peruvians are still about to take legal action, you two have already reached a verdict. That's quick - knee-jerk quick.

Well, considering that they've admitted to doing the acts that constitute a crime, yes. It's not much of a leap to make.

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
By the way, I fully expect the perpetrators to face time in a Peruvian prison, or at least pay significant fines. But this doesn't mean that Greenpeace is a criminal (let alone "terrorist") organisation.

If it were their first act of stupidity, I might be with you. But we all know that Greenpeace has a long history of controversy whereas other groups do not. So yes, they are well deserving of this scorn.

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
So in your world, defending someone or something means that I must like them/it?

Simply defending them, no, especially if you were a paid advocate. But it doesn't appear to be that you are, so as I stated, you're going well out of your way to show sympathy to them. That's probative evidence.

aloges · Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:43 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 28):
So, to you, it's okay if they trample the site as long as they don't trample the actual lines constituting the hummingbird itself?

No:

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
I fully expect the perpetrators to face time in a Peruvian prison, or at least pay significant fines.

I did hope that was going to be clear enough.

Quoting D L X (Reply 28):
Easy there cowboy. You're not the only one that reads.

Since I was "accused" of not having read it:

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 22):
Know how I know you DRTFA?

I thought I might reply to that.

Quoting D L X (Reply 28):
you're going well out of your way to show sympathy to them.

In that case, I hope I'm never going to be shown what you consider sympathy. It doesn't usually include the observation that someone is going to be spending time in a prison cell.

Quoting D L X (Reply 28):
That's probative evidence.

What do you want, your honour?

D L X · Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:10 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 29):
Quoting D L X (Reply 28):
Easy there cowboy. You're not the only one that reads.

Since I was "accused" of not having read it:

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 22):
Know how I know you DRTFA?

I thought I might reply to that.

Okay. I thought you were leveling that at me.

Quoting aloges (Reply 29):
In that case, I hope I'm never going to be shown what you consider sympathy. It doesn't usually include the observation that someone is going to be spending time in a prison cell.

Quoting D L X (Reply 28):
That's probative evidence.

What do you want, your honour?

You're not seriously denying that you're going well out of your way to defend what you have agreed is porbably criminal activity, are you?

aloges · Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:28 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
You're not seriously denying that you're going well out of your way to defend what you have agreed is porbably criminal activity, are you?

I am defending Greenpeace, the organisation, from attacks that I consider excessive and/or unwarranted. I could do the same with/for e.g. the Roman Catholic Church, even though I seriously dislike them. I am not defending this particular action of theirs (GP, not the RCC), as should have become abundantly clear by now... since my second reply, actually:

Quoting aloges (Reply 7):
I'm not exactly fond of Greenpeace either, but smear campaigns and insults don't help anyone.

Look, if you want a Greenpeace apologist who will defend every single thing they do and have an online fight with you about it, you will have to look elsewhere.

RussianJet · Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:49 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 31):
I am defending Greenpeace, the organisation, from attacks that I consider excessive and/or unwarranted.

I guess the problem for me is that it's not the first time, not even relatively recently. Unpopular though Russia is, and I'm not going to get into that one because it's actually irrelevant apart from anything else, the fact is that they broke the law by doing what they did, trespassing on the energy platform. What annoyed me was not really that they did it (I support the cause in general, for a start), but how disingenuous they were about it afterwards. People seriously sat there with a straight face saying they honestly didn't expect to be locked up by the Russians (who the hell did they pay to brief them before that mission then?? a refund may be due - the Russians don't normally have the most reliable habit of saying 'naughty boy' then just sending you home without punishment if they feel you've broken the law), and that they did 'nothing wrong'. I suppose with the latter it depends on whether you mean morally or legally, but I think by most measures people are reasonably entitled to consider going to a foreign jurisdiction planning to break the law to qualify as being 'wrong'. The reaction, I will grant them, seems to be a thousand times more sensible and sensitive in this case, so maybe some learning has taken place. Also, I get the impression that this event was not quite as seriously planned - is that perception correct?

D L X · Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:14 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 31):
I am defending Greenpeace, the organisation, from attacks that I consider excessive and/or unwarranted.

If it were one isolated event, you *might* have a point. But it's but one of a series of controversial activity that this group has engaged in. Quite simply, it is constantly finding itself in legal trouble. Further, it's not some rogue offshoots that are doing it -- it's planned at an organizational level. That should set off alarm bells in your mind when discussing them.

The criticism is not excessive when it has to come this frequently.

PHX787 · Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:05 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Quoting aloges (Reply 31):
I am defending Greenpeace, the organisation, from attacks that I consider excessive and/or unwarranted.

If it were one isolated event, you *might* have a point. But it's but one of a series of controversial activity that this group has engaged in

They are probably just as irrational and stupid as sea shepherd.

aloges · Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:38 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 32):
they broke the law by doing what they did, trespassing on the energy platform.

I've just read this a second time and I'm still wondering to what, exactly, you were referring. It's probably interesting, so please explain.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
If it were one isolated event, you *might* have a point. But it's but one of a series of controversial activity that this group has engaged in.

Controversial is not the same as criminal. People love to lash out at those who criticise their indifference, so whoever dares to do so is always in for a kicking - right up to the point where they are sentenced for civil disobedience. As a result, any organisation that focuses on campaigning and civil disobedience is naturally going to find

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
itself in legal trouble

most of the time. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not, but it doesn't mean the organisation needs to be disbanded.

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Further, it's not some rogue offshoots that are doing it -- it's planned at an organizational level. That should set off alarm bells in your mind when discussing them.

I'm not familiar with the planning process at Greenpeace and I suspect that neither are you. The trial in Peru will result in a verdict, not your rantings against Greenpeace on Airliners.net.

D L X · Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 35):
Controversial is not the same as criminal.

Selective quoting. The controversies are often of a legal nature, as I stated in my post.

Quoting aloges (Reply 35):
any organisation that focuses on campaigning and civil disobedience is naturally going to find

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
itself in legal trouble

Oh please. Do NOT equate Greenpeace to any civil rights organization. They are not protecting civil rights.

Quoting aloges (Reply 35):
Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Further, it's not some rogue offshoots that are doing it -- it's planned at an organizational level. That should set off alarm bells in your mind when discussing them.

I'm not familiar with the planning process at Greenpeace and I suspect that neither are you.

Then now you're denying facts. This event was planned at an organizational level. If it were not, you would see Greenpeace itself condemning it. Sorry dude, but this is corporate crime.

aloges · Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:04 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):
Do NOT equate Greenpeace to any civil rights organization.

I'll stop you right there.

I did not even hint at civil rights organisations. Once again, you are reading things into my posts that just are not there. There doesn't seem to be a way I could possibly discuss this issue with you.

D L X · Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:14 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 37):
I'll stop you right there. I did not even hint at civil rights organisations. Once again, you are reading things into my posts that just are not there.

I'm going to stop you instead. When you talk about civil disobedience being a respectable form of advocacy, you're talking about civil rights.

You continue to deny the facts, and now I think you're looking for an out.

aloges · Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:21 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
You continue to deny the facts, and now I think you're looking for an out.

Ah. I didn't know that this was a competition that I could either win or lose.

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
When you talk about civil disobedience being a respectable form of advocacy, you're talking about civil rights.

See, instead of interpreting my words one way - your way - only, you could try accepting that I actually meant something else. As I was saying:

Quoting aloges (Reply 37):
There doesn't seem to be a way I could possibly discuss this issue with you.

D L X · Thu Dec 18, 2014 4:30 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
There doesn't seem to be a way I could possibly discuss this issue with you.

I've given you plenty of substantive things to respond to, but you've chosen this instead.

Your choice. I think we've all figured out where you stand at any rate.

RussianJet · Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:32 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 35):
I've just read this a second time and I'm still wondering to what, exactly, you were referring. It's probably interesting, so please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Arctic_Sunrise_ship_case

windy95 · Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:51 pm

Seeing how the damage is permanent I think a nice long jail term and a fine to bankrupt Greenpeace should be in order

pvjin · Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:59 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 42):
Seeing how the damage is permanent I think a nice long jail term and a fine to bankrupt Greenpeace should be in order

That's what we should do to climate change deniers too, after all with their propaganda they are contributing to the permanent, or at least very long lasting damage to the environment caused by climate change.

windy95 · Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:29 am

Quoting pvjin (Reply 43):
That's what we should do to climate change deniers too, after all with their propaganda they are contributing to the permanent, or at least very long lasting damage to the environment caused by climate change.

I do not believe that there is anyone out there who denies that the climate has been changing for millions of years. Now the "scientists" and politicians who feed them with our tax dollars to peddle CAGW should be the ones to join these green peace eco terrorist in the slammer

D L X · Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:51 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 35):
I'm not familiar with the planning process at Greenpeace and I suspect that neither are you.

Just so we're all on the same page, watch this report from PBS.

http://youtu.be/lh1_q0P-EHk

You'll see that this was not a rogue group. Greenpeace planned it and videotaped it. This was planned to coincide with the climate conference going on at Lima at the time.

Do not give Greenpeace the organization a pass. They were central to this obscenity.

pvjin · Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:01 am

Quoting windy95 (Reply 44):
I do not believe that there is anyone out there who denies that the climate has been changing for millions of years.

Naturally I'm talking about people who deny that our massive greenhouse gas emissions have something to do with this climate change.

mandala499 · Thu Dec 25, 2014 3:34 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
We condemned the Taliban when the Buddhas of Bamiyan were blown apart and when extremists destroyed ancient areas in Timbuktu; Greenpeace, however honorable its purpose is, just earned a spot next to these other groups.

Nicely put...

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
Ethical environment groups must be fuming over this.

I think Greenpeace is ignorant outside their scope of activities.

Quoting CplKlinger (Reply 22):
They broke Peruvian law to do so. Hence, Greenpeace = criminals

They clearly trespassed into the site without permission (knowing that they needed permission), they are therefore trespassers... whether to the extent of being criminal trespassers, we have to wait for the Peruvians for that... but trespassers they are!

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
By the way, I fully expect the perpetrators to face time in a Peruvian prison, or at least pay significant fines. But this doesn't mean that Greenpeace is a criminal (let alone "terrorist") organisation.

Having dealt with Greenpeace in the past, they are not convicted criminals... they're the mafia... If it doesn't suit their "donators" needs, no matter how green the solution is... they'll maintain their position to refuse whatever it is outside their "donators" needs... that is, unless you make a bigger donation and ask for another green cause... then they'll go away... or even turn against the previous donators against you.

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):
Then now you're denying facts. This event was planned at an organizational level. If it were not, you would see Greenpeace itself condemning it.

That is why, I personally view them as terrorists / criminals now...

The end does not justify the means!

DocLightning · Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:09 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 19):
Greenpeace could be doing so much good, but instead they seem intent on focusing on idiotic stunts then whining about the consequences or having to apologise abjectly and look like complete fools.

They are what I call "well-meaning idiots." And that class of people is slightly less dangerous than malevolent geniuses...but much more common.

Greenpeace does a lot more damage to the environment than good, if any thing by making people who actually care about the environment look like idiots.

57AZ · Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:21 am

Well, they're permanently off my donation list.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net