Greenpeace needs to be dissolved

David St. Hubbins said:
I'm not making light of anything. I am accurately describing what the activists did. They scaled a fence and cut down plants with weed-whackers. I know that these were very expensive and very important plants, but that is all that they did. They should be punished for the crimes they have committed, but they aren't "terrorists" and they didn't commit acts of terrorism.
Click to expand...

No, you are not conveying what occurred.

1) DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT DESTROY A GOVERNMENT RESEARCH PROJECT????

2) WAS THEIR INTENT TO CHANGE GOVERNMENT POLICY????

Why don't we keep the analogy closer to the facts? Let's say I have prize-winning tomato plants in my back garden and you climb my fence and chop them down. You have not committed a violent crime.
Click to expand...

Again, you make light of what occurred. Your analogy is NOT the same, mine was. Greenpeace destroyed the entire research crop.... ie... everything the scientists had. This wasn't a case of simply cutting down plants and you know it. Hence your continue efforts to spin it and act innocent about the spinning.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I'm not making light of anything. I am accurately describing what the activists did. They scaled a fence and cut down plants with weed-whackers. I know that these were very expensive and very important plants, but that is all that they did. They should be punished for the crimes they have committed, but they aren't "terrorists" and they didn't commit acts of terrorism.



Why don't we keep the analogy closer to the facts? Let's say I have prize-winning tomato plants in my back garden and you climb my fence and chop them down. You have not committed a violent crime.
Click to expand...

Unless you're a tomato! LOL
 
Superfreak said:
No, you are not conveying what occurred.

1) DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT DESTROY A GOVERNMENT RESEARCH PROJECT????

2) WAS THEIR INTENT TO CHANGE GOVERNMENT POLICY????
Click to expand...

Yes, they destroyed a government research project by scaling a fence and cutting down wheat with weed-whackers. Maybe they intended to change government policy but my sense is that the destruction was done to destroy the plants and to prevent them from "contaminating" natural wheat plants. It seems more that they understood that they could not change government policy regarding experimenting with GM crops and instead decided just to destroy the GM crops.


Superfreak said:
Again, you make light of what occurred. Your analogy is NOT the same, mine was. Greenpeace destroyed the entire research crop.... ie... everything the scientists had. This wasn't a case of simply cutting down plants and you know it. Hence your continue efforts to spin it and act innocent about the spinning.
Click to expand...

I'm not making light of what occurred. It sounds like the damage will set the project back by a year or so. But it is a case of simply cutting down very important plants. You want to make it the crime of the century.
 
Here's an interesting question Let's say for the sake or argument that Greenpeace should be disbanded for commiting a crime. So how would a handful of right wingers in the US go about dispanding an international non-profit NGO like Greenpeace?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Don't you mean "tax exempt"?
Click to expand...

Actually I would mean both. For example. A Masonic lodge is tax exempt, but donations to them are not deductible.

They should both be non-exempt and any donation that may have been deductible in the past should no longer be deductible.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Yes, they destroyed a government research project by scaling a fence and cutting down wheat with weed-whackers. Maybe they intended to change government policy but my sense is that the destruction was done to destroy the plants and to prevent them from "contaminating" natural wheat plants. It seems more that they understood that they could not change government policy regarding experimenting with GM crops and instead decided just to destroy the GM crops.
Click to expand...

Thanks.... that is all you had to finally admit. They destroyed government property. Research that had been paid for by the taxpayer. They broke onto the property to do so. Tell us... how did they get through the netting that was up to protect the crops from being spread by birds?

Now you are really spinning.... so you 'think' they didn't intend to change policy because they couldn't... so WHY exactly did they destroy the crop? Just to risk spreading the contamination themselves? Or let me guess, because they wore HAZMAT suits they had everything under control. It was professionals that cut down the crop right? They knew what they were doing? They went to all that trouble, they will go to jail for it... only to see the government delayed by a year... but not to try and change policy? ROFLMAO....

I'm not making light of what occurred. It sounds like the damage will set the project back by a year or so. But it is a case of simply cutting down very important plants. You want to make it the crime of the century.
Click to expand...

Again, yes... you are. You are edging closer to sanity, but you are still trying to make light of it. I am not trying to make it the crime of the century, that is simply a straw man on your part. I am saying that an organization that blatantly breaks the law, destroys property and brags about it should be disbanded.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Yes, they destroyed a government research project by scaling a fence and cutting down wheat with weed-whackers. Maybe they intended to change government policy but my sense is that the destruction was done to destroy the plants and to prevent them from "contaminating" natural wheat plants. It seems more that they understood that they could not change government policy regarding experimenting with GM crops and instead decided just to destroy the GM crops.




I'm not making light of what occurred. It sounds like the damage will set the project back by a year or so. But it is a case of simply cutting down very important plants. You want to make it the crime of the century.
Click to expand...
That's because SF also has a political agenda. He opposes environmental activism and so he wants to demonize environmental activist.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Here's an interesting question Let's say for the sake or argument that Greenpeace should be disbanded for commiting a crime. So how would a handful of right wingers in the US go about dispanding an international non-profit NGO like Greenpeace?
Click to expand...

First, it would not be a 'handful of right wingers'. It would be via our court system and they would be prosecuted according to our laws. We would not disband the international organization. We would disband the US branches of the organization. That is our jurisdiction. Not sure why you input the fact that they are non-profit for that doesn't matter. Nor does the fact that they are an NGO...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's because SF also has a political agenda. He opposes environmental activism and so he wants to demonize environmental activist.
Click to expand...

Wrong moron. I oppose environmental extremism. I fully support and participate in environmental activism. Idiots like these at Greenpeace are a severe DETRIMENT to the cause. I want them gone.

I support pro-life activism as well, but fully support eliminating each and every individual/group that uses violence (bombing abortion clinics) as a means to the end. They too are a severe detriment to the cause.

So next time, before you assign me what you WANT my 'beliefs' to be, perhaps you should actually find out what my beliefs are so you won't look so unbelievable retarded next time.... though given your history, you are going to have a hard time not looking retarded... it's what you do best.
 
Damocles said:
Actually I would mean both. For example. A Masonic lodge is tax exempt, but donations to them are not deductible.

They should both be non-exempt and any donation that may have been deductible in the past should no longer be deductible.
Click to expand...

You have a good point. If the directors of Greenpeace are openely advocating criminal acts then their tax exempt status should be scrutinzed. You'd be in a legal gray area though as who is to say that they are advocating criminal acts or legitimate political protest? Political protest is also unlawful in many parts of the world and would be considered a criminal act too. Then you have the problem of how you would enforce that internationally? Greenpeace actions, in this particular case, have broad support and approval in certain parts of the world. Such as Europe where GMF's are far more politically unpopular then in the US or Canada (and apparently Austraiia.).
 
Superfreak said:
First, it would not be a 'handful of right wingers'. It would be via our court system and they would be prosecuted according to our laws. We would not disband the international organization. We would disband the US branches of the organization. That is our jurisdiction. Not sure why you input the fact that they are non-profit for that doesn't matter. Nor does the fact that they are an NGO...
Click to expand...

OK Sweetheart, how are you going to do that when the actions occurred outside of US jurisdiction by people who are not even US Citizens?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OK Sweetheart, how are you going to do that when the actions occurred outside of US jurisdiction by people who are not even US Citizens?
Click to expand...

Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."[3] The FBI has credited to eco-terrorism 300 million dollars in property damage from 2003 and 2008, and a majority of states within the USA have introduced laws aimed at these activities.[4]

The group as a whole has staked claim to the actions. Action therefore can be taken against the US portion of the group.
 
Superfreak said:
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 'Goldman Sachs'.

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.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Thanks.... that is all you had to finally admit. They destroyed government property. Research that had been paid for by the taxpayer. They broke onto the property to do so. Tell us... how did they get through the netting that was up to protect the crops from being spread by birds?
Click to expand...

I conceded in the fourth post in this thread that the activists were criminals and committed criminal acts. The issue that I thought we were discussing is whether those criminal acts were terrorist acts.


Superfreak said:
Now you are really spinning.... so you 'think' they didn't intend to change policy because they couldn't... so WHY exactly did they destroy the crop? Just to risk spreading the contamination themselves? Or let me guess, because they wore HAZMAT suits they had everything under control. It was professionals that cut down the crop right? They knew what they were doing? They went to all that trouble, they will go to jail for it... only to see the government delayed by a year... but not to try and change policy? ROFLMAO....
Click to expand...


They destroyed the crops to destroy the crops:

All of the evidence shows that GM can’t be contained in the field. Greenpeace has taken action to protect our food supply being contaminated by experimental GM wheat. Now the Australian Government must step in and protect the health of Australian people.

“We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,” said Greenpeace Food campaigner Laura Kelly. “GM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate. This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.”
Click to expand...

I'm sure they hope that the Australian government will not pursue further testing, but I doubt anyone at Greenpeace believes that destroying the crops will cause the Australian government to re-evaluate whether to conduct the research



Superfreak said:
Again, yes... you are. You are edging closer to sanity, but you are still trying to make light of it. I am not trying to make it the crime of the century, that is simply a straw man on your part. I am saying that an organization that blatantly breaks the law, destroys property and brags about it should be disbanded.
Click to expand...

No, you're basically saying that Greenpeace is a terrorist organization in possession of dangerous WWMD (weed-whackers of mass destruction).
 
I just don't see how the thread went from the acts of Green Peace members and the main site taking credit to the possibility that they could face terror charges-that's for the prosecutors to decide.

Seems to me that one argument usually said about the left is that they are 'pro-science' via evolution, climate change, etc. So now for some reason, they are against experimentation that could lead to less starvation and better nutrition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top