Greenpeace needs to be dissolved

You can continue trying to equate their actions to simply 'mowing the yard'.... but everyone with any common sense can see the stupidity in the analogy.

Ownership of the plants doesn't change the nature of the act performed. It just changes whether the acts performed were lawful or not. As I said, bombing my yard with Molotov Cocktails is a violent act whereas mowing my lawn is not. The ownership issue doesn't define the act.

Destruction of property/breaking and entering ARE acts of violence you retard.

Argument by assertion doesn't move me much. As I understand the term, violence involves the use of force to inflict bodily injury or death, or the threat thereof. Jumping fences and running weed-whackers do not qualify.
 
LMAO... that is your piss poor analogy moron, not mine. Breaking and entering, destruction of property/research for an ideological purpose IS an act of violence with the intent to get the government to cease the research. THAT is terrorism you dolt.

It isn't an analogy. That's what these "terrorists" did: scaled a fence and ran weed-whackers.
 
Ownership of the plants doesn't change the nature of the act performed. It just changes whether the acts performed were lawful or not. As I said, bombing my yard with Molotov Cocktails is a violent act whereas mowing my lawn is not. The ownership issue doesn't define the act.

Yes, ownership most certainly makes a difference. Doing something to your OWN property is your right. Doing something to someone ELSE's property WITHOUT their consent is something entirely different. The goal was to influence policy to force the government to abandon the research into GM wheat crops. It wasn't simply 'gee, I think I will mow my neighbors yard without his consent'. You continue to pretend they just went in and mowing it down was their only goal.

You continue to make light of the issue in some vain attempt to justify their actions. Which is why you state 'jumping fences and running weed wackers'.... pathetic way to minimize their actions into something trivial.

They destroyed GOVERNMENT RESEARCH.... a point you continue to try and avoid with such pathetic comments as those you have displayed thus far.

They were trying to influence GOVERNMENT POLICY via their actions.... another point you continue to duck


As I understand the term, violence involves the use of force to inflict bodily injury or death, or the threat thereof. Jumping fences and running weed-whackers do not qualify.

So if someone throws a burning trash can through a window into an unoccupied store during a protest.... you wouldn't consider that an act of violence?
 
CSIRO

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, most commonly referred to by its acronym CSIRO, was established in 1926 as an Australian government agency to undertake scientific research to assist primary or secondary industries in Australia.

Growing Commercialisation

The CSIRO has been criticised for a growing focus on making a profit, rather than on undertaking research. For example, in August 2006, the CSIRO has signed an agreement with Genetic Solutions, a Brisbane based-company, to become a shareholder in the company in exchange for its research into cattle genes. [1] The CSIRO has not traditionally held shares in companies.

In addition, much CSIRO research is now funded by private enterprise, which has raised questions about corporate influence on the CSIRO's previously independent research. For example, tn February 2007, the Canberra Times reported that "the CSIRO has confirmed coal industry bodies have the power to suppress a new report questioning the cost and efficiency of clean-coal carbon capture technologies because they partly funded the research". [2]

CSIRO PR

Until mid-July 2006, Donna Staunton was the Executive Director of Communications for CSIRO and is also a member of the Executive team. Staunton was previously a vice president of Phillip Morris, the chief executive of the Tobacco Institute of Australia, and sat on the board of conservative Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). [3] The IPA has been a consistent critic of climate science, arguing that the link between increased greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has not been proven.

CSIRO Board

The CSIRO Board is responsible to the Australian Government for the overall strategy, governance and performance of CSIRO. But controversially, in February 2006, the Howard Government appointed two coal and energy industry executives - Eileen Doyle and Peter Willcox - to the board, leading to acusations that the CSIRO was becoming captured to by fossil fuel industry interests, thus compromising its independence. Australians Greens Senator Christine Milne was quoted as saying that "it is outrageous. The Australian public should be seriously concerned about the implication of these appointments for the independence, integrity and direction of CSIRO's research."

Sourcewatch


CSIRO scientist asks chefs to leave GM foods alone



A letter campaign to Australia’s top chefs — including Kylie Kwong, Maggie Beer, Stephanie Alexander, Stefano de Pieri and Margaret Fulton — has again raised questions about the CSIRO’s alliances with industry.

In copies of a letter forwarded to Crikey, Deputy Chief of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Plant Industry, TJ Higgins, has written to more than 50 chefs who signed Greenpeace’s GM-free Chefs Charter, asking them not to boycott Genetically Modified products.

Higgins, whose claims about the safety of GM foods have attracted criticism from some scientists and support from others, is CSIRO’s co-inventor of the GM field pea. The pea, spliced with a bean gene, cost more than $2 million to develop but was abandoned because it caused immune issues and lung-damage when fed to mice.

Despite this, Higgins’ letter urges chefs to “think more broadly about the implications of your opposition”. Higgins says ”it is untrue to say that GM food has not been tested for human safety.” It has, he notes, “and very widely” —  independent studies have found no “connection between health problems and GM food”.

But Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales told Crikey that Higgins’ claims have been refuted by peer-reviewed studies and that “Higgins has clearly, and not for the first time, crossed the line between being a scientist and biotechnology industry lobbyist.”

Claims of safety are also challenged by public health scientists, including Australian epidemiologist Judy Carman and nutritionist and biochemist Rosemary Stanton, who say there is mounting evidence to suggest some GM foods currently on the market are unsafe, and these have not undergone the rigour of testing that found health hazards in Higgins’ ill-fated GM pea. While Australian food regulation bodies don’t require such testing, in Europe and Japan, many GM foods are banned because of perceived inadequate testing.

CSIRO’s public comments policy forbids advocacy and calls for “care… when speaking about work with commercial potential.”

CSIRO Plant Industry has commercial partners and holds several GM product patents that depend on market acceptance of GM food. Many of these products are co-invented by Australia’s Chief Scientist Jim Peacock, who has lobbied to overturn GM bans.
 
CSIRO

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, most commonly referred to by its acronym CSIRO, was established in 1926 as an Australian government agency to undertake scientific research to assist primary or secondary industries in Australia.

Growing Commercialisation

The CSIRO has been criticised for a growing focus on making a profit, rather than on undertaking research. For example, in August 2006, the CSIRO has signed an agreement with Genetic Solutions, a Brisbane based-company, to become a shareholder in the company in exchange for its research into cattle genes. [1] The CSIRO has not traditionally held shares in companies.

In addition, much CSIRO research is now funded by private enterprise, which has raised questions about corporate influence on the CSIRO's previously independent research. For example, tn February 2007, the Canberra Times reported that "the CSIRO has confirmed coal industry bodies have the power to suppress a new report questioning the cost and efficiency of clean-coal carbon capture technologies because they partly funded the research". [2]

CSIRO PR

Until mid-July 2006, Donna Staunton was the Executive Director of Communications for CSIRO and is also a member of the Executive team. Staunton was previously a vice president of Phillip Morris, the chief executive of the Tobacco Institute of Australia, and sat on the board of conservative Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). [3] The IPA has been a consistent critic of climate science, arguing that the link between increased greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has not been proven.

CSIRO Board

The CSIRO Board is responsible to the Australian Government for the overall strategy, governance and performance of CSIRO. But controversially, in February 2006, the Howard Government appointed two coal and energy industry executives - Eileen Doyle and Peter Willcox - to the board, leading to acusations that the CSIRO was becoming captured to by fossil fuel industry interests, thus compromising its independence. Australians Greens Senator Christine Milne was quoted as saying that "it is outrageous. The Australian public should be seriously concerned about the implication of these appointments for the independence, integrity and direction of CSIRO's research."

Sourcewatch


CSIRO scientist asks chefs to leave GM foods alone



A letter campaign to Australia’s top chefs — including Kylie Kwong, Maggie Beer, Stephanie Alexander, Stefano de Pieri and Margaret Fulton — has again raised questions about the CSIRO’s alliances with industry.

In copies of a letter forwarded to Crikey, Deputy Chief of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Plant Industry, TJ Higgins, has written to more than 50 chefs who signed Greenpeace’s GM-free Chefs Charter, asking them not to boycott Genetically Modified products.

Higgins, whose claims about the safety of GM foods have attracted criticism from some scientists and support from others, is CSIRO’s co-inventor of the GM field pea. The pea, spliced with a bean gene, cost more than $2 million to develop but was abandoned because it caused immune issues and lung-damage when fed to mice.

Despite this, Higgins’ letter urges chefs to “think more broadly about the implications of your opposition”. Higgins says ”it is untrue to say that GM food has not been tested for human safety.” It has, he notes, “and very widely” —  independent studies have found no “connection between health problems and GM food”.

But Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales told Crikey that Higgins’ claims have been refuted by peer-reviewed studies and that “Higgins has clearly, and not for the first time, crossed the line between being a scientist and biotechnology industry lobbyist.”

Claims of safety are also challenged by public health scientists, including Australian epidemiologist Judy Carman and nutritionist and biochemist Rosemary Stanton, who say there is mounting evidence to suggest some GM foods currently on the market are unsafe, and these have not undergone the rigour of testing that found health hazards in Higgins’ ill-fated GM pea. While Australian food regulation bodies don’t require such testing, in Europe and Japan, many GM foods are banned because of perceived inadequate testing.

CSIRO’s public comments policy forbids advocacy and calls for “care… when speaking about work with commercial potential.”

CSIRO Plant Industry has commercial partners and holds several GM product patents that depend on market acceptance of GM food. Many of these products are co-invented by Australia’s Chief Scientist Jim Peacock, who has lobbied to overturn GM bans.

ROFLMAO..... and we have a new front runner in the ignorant poster of the day contest!!!!

I should have known we could count on BFGRN for compounding ignorance with stupidity.

Greenpeace breaks the law, destroys GOVERNMENT research and Bfgrn's response:

'CSIRO is bad'

ROFLMAO....
 
Australia’s wheat scandal report
The biotech takeover of our daily bread

Greenpeace strongly opposes field
trials of GM wheat as the risks of
such open experiments cannot be
contained. One of the largest and
most costly GM contamination cases
in history started from a small-scale
field trial of Bayer’s Liberty Link rice.
In 2006, the GM rice was found to
be widespread in US long grain rice,
costing the global rice industry
$1.2 billion.7 When asked in court to
explain how the contamination resulted
from a ‘low-risk’, small-scale GM field
trial, Bayer claimed the contamination
event was “an act of God.” 8
The Australian Government has
documented clear evidence of
GM contamination. Yet, with
willful ignorance of the risk of GM
contamination, GM wheat trials have
proceeded. Why is the OGTR trialing
GM wheat in the field, when they have
clear evidence that GM wheat will
contaminate?
 
Australia’s wheat scandal report
The biotech takeover of our daily bread

Greenpeace strongly opposes field
trials of GM wheat as the risks of
such open experiments cannot be
contained. One of the largest and
most costly GM contamination cases
in history started from a small-scale
field trial of Bayer’s Liberty Link rice.
In 2006, the GM rice was found to
be widespread in US long grain rice,
costing the global rice industry
$1.2 billion.7 When asked in court to
explain how the contamination resulted
from a ‘low-risk’, small-scale GM field
trial, Bayer claimed the contamination
event was “an act of God.” 8
The Australian Government has
documented clear evidence of
GM contamination. Yet, with
willful ignorance of the risk of GM
contamination, GM wheat trials have
proceeded. Why is the OGTR trialing
GM wheat in the field, when they have
clear evidence that GM wheat will
contaminate?

LMAO.... look, he posted the GREENPEACE report.... wow, he is really trying hard to earn the title today....
 
The above is brought to you by the idiot who thinks running a weed-whacker is a terrorist act.

Right wingers like the freak make the late Ted Sorensen sound more profound every day. This reminds me of an argument I had with some other right wingers over the Kent State murders. They claimed the students got what they deserved because they burned down an ROTC building.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

BTW, the ROTC building was vacant and scheduled for demolition.
 
LMAO.... look, he posted the GREENPEACE report.... wow, he is really trying hard to earn the title today....

Hey pea brain...you do realize you are defending GOVERNMENT...LOL

NO punishment is too harsh when you right wingers stand with authority.
 
Right wingers like the freak make the late Ted Sorensen sound more profound every day. This reminds me of an argument I had with some other right wingers over the Kent State murders. They claimed the students got what they deserved because they burned down an ROTC building.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

BTW, the ROTC building was vacant and scheduled for demolition.

Yet more nonsense from Bfgrn.... you can stop now, you have locked up the title for the day.
 
Hey pea brain...you do realize you are defending GOVERNMENT...LOL

NO punishment is too harsh when you right wingers stand with authority.

Hey moron.... you do realize that I like having a government right? That I am not an anarchist?

do you need us to explain the difference between 'not wanting a centralized federal government' and 'all government is bad' again?

Also, are you EVER going to address the actual topic of this thread or are you simply going to continue posting irrelevant bullshit?
 
Attacking a government non-military target with an expressed political or ideological intent to discourage further policies is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

would you really charge these people with terrorism? what violence was used? cutting wheat with a weed wacker is considered violence?
 
Hey moron.... you do realize that I like having a government right? That I am not an anarchist?

do you need us to explain the difference between 'not wanting a centralized federal government' and 'all government is bad' again?

Also, are you EVER going to address the actual topic of this thread or are you simply going to continue posting irrelevant bullshit?

What Greenpeace did is vandalism. Nothing more. NO ONE died here. Why is it you right wingers always defend the executioners? When coal burning power plants that kill 13,000 Americans every year are forced to clean up emissions and meet EPA regulations they knew were coming for a decade you slime balls stand with the coal cartels? When insurance cartels have REAL death panels, you don't even want to hear about it.

You have decided that every word in your article is gospel, and that Greenpeace is totally in the wrong. If what Greenpeace says is true, then they have a case against 'trial' fields...

One of the largest and
most costly GM contamination cases
in history started from a small-scale
field trial of Bayer’s Liberty Link rice.
In 2006, the GM rice was found to
be widespread in US long grain rice,
costing the global rice industry
$1.2 billion. When asked in court to
explain how the contamination resulted
from a ‘low-risk’, small-scale GM field
trial, Bayer claimed the contamination
event was “an act of God.”
 
What Greenpeace did is vandalism. Nothing more. NO ONE died here. Why is it you right wingers always defend the executioners? When coal burning power plants that kill 13,000 Americans every year are forced to clean up emissions and meet EPA regulations they knew were coming for a decade you slime balls stand with the coal cartels? When insurance cartels have REAL death panels, you don't even want to hear about it.

You have decided that every word in your article is gospel, and that Greenpeace is totally in the wrong. If what Greenpeace says is true, then they have a case against 'trial' fields...

One of the largest and
most costly GM contamination cases
in history started from a small-scale
field trial of Bayer’s Liberty Link rice.
In 2006, the GM rice was found to
be widespread in US long grain rice,
costing the global rice industry
$1.2 billion. When asked in court to
explain how the contamination resulted
from a ‘low-risk’, small-scale GM field
trial, Bayer claimed the contamination
event was “an act of God.”

what does "no one died" have to do with anything being discussed? are you saying terrorist acts only result in death?

are you saying 9/11 wasn't a terrorist act because more people have died in earthquakes or other natural disasters?
 
what does "no one died" have to do with anything being discussed? are you saying terrorist acts only result in death?

are you saying 9/11 wasn't a terrorist act because more people have died in earthquakes or other natural disasters?

Did people DIE on 9/11? Take your time Yurt. Vandalism is not terrorism, unless you are a wheat stalk.
 
Yes, ownership most certainly makes a difference. Doing something to your OWN property is your right. Doing something to someone ELSE's property WITHOUT their consent is something entirely different. The goal was to influence policy to force the government to abandon the research into GM wheat crops. It wasn't simply 'gee, I think I will mow my neighbors yard without his consent'. You continue to pretend they just went in and mowing it down was their only goal.

You continue to make light of the issue in some vain attempt to justify their actions. Which is why you state 'jumping fences and running weed wackers'.... pathetic way to minimize their actions into something trivial.

They destroyed GOVERNMENT RESEARCH.... a point you continue to try and avoid with such pathetic comments as those you have displayed thus far.

They were trying to influence GOVERNMENT POLICY via their actions.... another point you continue to duck

They committed a crime, or several. But they did not perform an act of terrorism.


So if someone throws a burning trash can through a window into an unoccupied store during a protest.... you wouldn't consider that an act of violence?

Yes, I would consider throwing a burning trash can through a window into an unoccupied store an act of violence.
 
Indeed. And that's a crime. But it isn't terrorist unless it was done through the use of violence.

Not to take this off-topic but out of curiousity would you consider someone carving an anti-Jew or anti-Ethnic slur into someone's front yard an act of vandalism or terrorism?

Edit: I didn't mean to single out Jews. In this example it could any religious group.
 
Back
Top