Greenpeace needs to be dissolved

[Bonestorm]

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.

Neither. It's a lot more than vandalism, but it isn't terrorism. I don't see it as an effort to bring about a change in government policy. The real question is whether it could properly be construed as a violent act. A burning cross would certainly qualify as a threat of bodily harm. Spray-painting "kike" on someone's house? Don't know where I come down on that one, but I could see it given the history of "marking" Jews and singling them out for violence. It's a tougher question.

But cutting down some wheat weed-whackers? That sure as shit ain't no violence act.

 

[Rune]

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4522/greenpeace-targets-csiro-crops?page=0%2C1

How can an organization be allowed to exist that commits an act of terrorism/vandalism, claims credit for doing so and then sits back and acts like they were doing the right thing?

What example are we setting if we allow groups to do such things?

If a group of citizens formed a group that did not agree with the global warming fear mongers, organized a 'rally' or event that was designed to burn down/destroy a government run lab.... what would you cry out for the government to do? As much as I obviously believe that the global warming fear mongers are full of shit, no group should be allowed to exist that deliberately destroys others property simply because they 'disagree'.

People are calling for Murdochs head because his reporters hacked private info. What Greenpeace did is taking it to a whole other level. Will we hear the same cries of outrage?

By your logic, any corporation guilty of of a crime should be disolved. I agree. Lets start now. First banks, then insurance companies, then defence contracters.

 

[Rune]

THEY DESTROYED GOVERNMENT RESEARCH YOU UNBELIEVABLE HACK.

OH MY GOD! The ireplacable "austrailian wheat strain" seeds have been lost forever along with at least a few arduous weeks of watching the grass grow.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Attacking a government non-military target with an expressed political or ideological intent to discourage further policies is pretty much the definition of terrorism.

No, committing an intentional act of violence against people with an expressed political aim or objective is terrorism. Damaging or destroying public or private property is vandalism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

"Attacking" with weed-whackers? Like I said, it certainly could have been terrorism if the method of "attack" posed the risk of injury or death, but that ain't what happened here. Calling it "terrorism" is ridiculous.

It's not only ridiculous but it also trivializes the serious nature of terrorism and that makes it completely stupid as well.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Terrorism involves the use of violence (or threat of violence at the very least). I do not think taking weed-whackers to wheat is as act of violence.

Unless you're a wheat stalk.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

You do make a valid point. SF is equating property as equal to people in his utterly bizarre definition of terrorism. That sure puts him out there on the lunatic fringe. That's some pretty fucked up morality.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

you're the one who indicated terrorism needs death, which is untrue

I have to agree. Terrorism only requires an act of violence against people or persons with a stated political aim. An act of violence does not need to result in a death to be considered "violence".

 

[Bfgrn]

OH MY GOD! The ireplacable "austrailian wheat strain" seeds have been lost forever along with at least a few arduous weeks of watching the grass grow.

Maybe Spock can use the Vulcan mind meld to communicate with the wheat...it worked with the 'Horta'...

Murderers!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

That's certainly a gray area. One could argue that such forms of intimidation would imply or promise an act of violence and if it was done for a specific political objective, then it could be considered an act of terror. One could argue that the KKK burning a cross in someone's yard is an act of terror given the history of the KKK, it's political goals and it's well known use of violence.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What Greenpeace did is vandalism. Nothing more. NO ONE died here.

so, to you someone has to DIE in order for it to be terrorism? My how the definition is ever evolving among the far left apologists. I will grant that it is opinion on whether it is simply vandalism vs. terrorism, but the act fits both descriptions.

Why is it you right wingers always defend the executioners?

So, to you, government scientists studying GM Wheat to see if it can be used to FEED people are executioners?

ROFLMAO.... you are such a hack.

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...

You are quite the drama queen. When party A says 'Party B came in and destroyed our research' and party B says 'we sure did'.... there is no gospel moron.... BOTH parties agree with what happened. Regardless of what Greenpeace 'says'....their actions are ILLEGAL. Or do you support a system where any party that disagrees with another has the right to go in and destroy someone else's property?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

would you really charge these people with terrorism? what violence was used? cutting wheat with a weed wacker is considered violence?

quit parroting Dung. It makes you look fucking retarded.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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

Yes, I would consider throwing a burning trash can through a window into an unoccupied store an act of violence.

But no one was hurt.... and you just got done saying "As I understand the term, violence involves the use of force to inflict bodily injury or death, or the threat thereof. "

hmmm.....

 

[Topspin]

what is the sentence freak, everybody seems to agree it was a crime.

These tools, econazi's certainly don't deserve alQuada type terrorism sentences?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Neither. It's a lot more than vandalism, but it isn't terrorism. I don't see it as an effort to bring about a change in government policy. The real question is whether it could properly be construed as a violent act. A burning cross would certainly qualify as a threat of bodily harm. Spray-painting "kike" on someone's house? Don't know where I come down on that one, but I could see it given the history of "marking" Jews and singling them out for violence. It's a tougher question.

But cutting down some wheat weed-whackers? That sure as shit ain't no violence act.

Ok... just so we all have your story straight....

1) Sometimes destruction of property is violent, sometimes it is not
2) You agree that terrorism is designed to bring about a change in government policy

bottom line, you are spinning.... their actions WERE designed to change government policy and they showed that they are willing to violate the law to get their way.

A burning cross is likewise a similar sign as is marking a Jewish home. NEITHER are acts of violence by your definition "As I understand the term, violence involves the use of force to inflict bodily injury or death, or the threat thereof. " They are PSYCHOLOGICAL.

 

[Bonestorm]

But no one was hurt.... and you just got done saying "As I understand the term, violence involves the use of force to inflict bodily injury or death, or the threat thereof. "

hmmm.....

Setting a trash can on fire and throwing it into a building poses a threat of bodily injury or death at least to the firefighters that respond to the fire.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

what is the sentence freak, everybody seems to agree it was a crime.

These tools, econazi's certainly don't deserve alQuada type terrorism sentences?

1) The group as I stated, should be disbanded and their assets seized. Those assets should pay for any damages that were incurred in the name of 'Greenpeace'.

2) The individuals who carried out the act should be tried and sentenced in a court of law. The actual time in jail should be commensurate with the damages. While both are acts of terrorism, you certainly wouldn't give them similar sentences to those whose actions took lives. There are different levels of burglary, robbery, murder etc.... it is the same with terrorism.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Setting a trash can on fire and throwing it into a building poses a threat of bodily injury or death at least to the firefighters that respond to the fire.

destroying crops that could feed starving people poses a threat to them as well.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ok... just so we all have your story straight....

1) Sometimes destruction of property is violent, sometimes it is not
2) You agree that terrorism is designed to bring about a change in government policy

bottom line, you are spinning.... their actions WERE designed to change government policy and they showed that they are willing to violate the law to get their way.

Yes, sometimes destruction of property is done through violent means. The example I used previously was bombing with Molotov Cocktails. That's a violent act. And yes, the goal of terrorism is to bring about a change in government policy.

You have to have both (1) a violent act and (2) designed to bring about a change in government policy to come close to meeting the definition of terrorism. It isn't enough to say that any person who violates the law to bring about a change in government policy is a terrorist. You're defining terrorism down to meaninglessness.

A burning cross is likewise a similar sign as is marking a Jewish home. NEITHER are acts of violence by your definition "As I understand the term, violence involves the use of force to inflict bodily injury or death, or the threat thereof. " They are PSYCHOLOGICAL.

Actually, both meet my definition of acts of violence. A burning cross or marking the home of a Jewish person is a threat to do bodily harm. As such, they are violent acts.

 

[Topspin]

I'm cool with that, we should treat Abortion clinic damagers as terrorist as well.