Greenpeace needs to be dissolved

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4522/greenpeace-targets-csiro-crops?page=0,1

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?
 
The outrage you crave is in your own linked story, dumbass.



Here it is:"As far as we're concerned this is an outrageous incident" said Michael Gilbert, general manager of the ACPFG.




There. He said "outrageous". That's outrage, but maybe not a "cry".




The only one crying is you, fucktard.
 
did someone say they weren't criminals?

If they hate oil companies why do they use gas outboards on the stupid mini boats they run in front of tankers?
 
The Dude said:
did someone say they weren't criminals?
Click to expand...

Of course not. And I don't think the activists themselves proclaim innocence. They claim that it is necessary to commit these crimes for the sake of the environment.


The Dude said:
If they hate oil companies why do they use gas outboards on the stupid mini boats they run in front of tankers?
Click to expand...

Because they haven't designed an engine that runs on self-righteousness yet.
 
Of course...we must move out of the way of corporate takeover of everything, even our food.

In 2004, North American farmers blocked GM wheat commercialization. According to the Canadian Wheat Board, the biotech industry could not ensure that GM wheat would not contaminate Canada’s conventional wheat supply and GM contamination would “virtually destroy the $3.5 billion industry in Western Canada.”1 The European Union and Russia have a near-ban on GM crop cultivation.

European Parliament strengthens draft laws to ban GM crops

Breadbasket of Democracy
A question as old as the Constitution: Who should make the economic decisions in this country?
 
Bfgrn said:
Of course...we must move out of the way of corporate takeover of everything, even our food.

In 2004, North American farmers blocked GM wheat commercialization. According to the Canadian Wheat Board, the biotech industry could not ensure that GM wheat would not contaminate Canada’s conventional wheat supply and GM contamination would “virtually destroy the $3.5 billion industry in Western Canada.”1 The European Union and Russia have a near-ban on GM crop cultivation.

European Parliament strengthens draft laws to ban GM crops

Breadbasket of Democracy
A question as old as the Constitution: Who should make the economic decisions in this country?
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... do you EVER read your own links?

Supporters of genetically modified crops argue they produce higher yields and are resistant to pests, requiring less fertilizer and pesticides, while opponents say more scientific data is needed on possible long-term harmful genetic impact on humans and wildlife.
Click to expand...

You do realize this WASN'T a corporation Greenpeace attacked?

You do realize this was a GOVERNMENT research facility?

You do realize their goal was to STUDY the effects of the GM wheat so that they could determine whether or not it was safe?
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4522/greenpeace-targets-csiro-crops?page=0,1

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?
Click to expand...

I don't know about being dissolved. If their leadership actively advocates criminal acts, they should pay the consequences when those occurr. I feel the same about right wing propagandist who advocate violence and other unlawful acts against their political opponents. If violent acts were to occurr against parties they advocated, then they should be held accountable but they still have their first ammendment rights to be either an environmental/right wing wacko.

Ultimately both are using the same twisted "the ends justify the means" logic. It's a slippery slope and I don't abide by it.

As an environmental professional I have mixed feelings about environmental activist. On the positive side they do much to improve and increase the publics awareness about important environmental issues. On the down side they rarely do anything productive and sometimes they go to far in their actions. I may share many of their values but I also value the rule of law. I know that many of my fellow colleagues veiw these activist as light weights who may have the courage of their convictions but often do not have the skills or talents to be more productive. That is why I don't affiliate my self with groups like Greenpeace even though I am a dedicated environmentalist.
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
You do realize this WASN'T a corporation Greenpeace attacked? You do realize this was a GOVERNMENT research facility?
Click to expand...



Then why aren't you applauding? You love corporations and hate government, don't you?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't know about being dissolved. If their leadership actively advocates criminal acts, they should pay the consequences when those occurr. I feel the same about right wing propagandist who advocate violence and other unlawful acts against their political opponents. If violent acts were to occurr against partieds they advocated, then they should be held accountable but they still have their first ammendment rights to be either an environmental/right wing wacko.

Ultimately both are using the same twisted "the ends justify the means" logic. It's a slippery slope and I don't abide by it.

As an environmental professional I have mixed feelings about environmental activist. On the positive side they do much to improve and increase the publics awareness about important environmental issues. On the down side they rarely do anything productive and sometimes they go to far in their actions. I may share many of their values but I also value the rule of law. I know that many of my fellow colleagues veiw these activist as light weights who may have the courage of their convictions but often do not have the skills or talents to be more productive. That is why I don't affiliate my self with groups like Greenpeace even though I am a dedicated environmentalist.
Click to expand...

from the article....

Greenpeace films destruction

Wearing white Hazmat suits that don the Greenpeace brand down each arm, the protestors used weed trimmers to methodically mow down the GM crops housed in the CSIRO's compound, and filmed themselves in the act.

Greenpeace is citing fears that GM wheat crops are unsafe for human consumption and could spread unabated, contaminating Australia's bulk wheat supply, as the reason for their action. The protestors created what the organisation calls "a decontamination area" to dispose of the crops.

"The EU, Russia, and even North America have rejected GM wheat because it hasn't been proven safe to eat," says Laura Kelly, who heads the food and farming campaign for Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

Kelly also claimed that the CSIRO "is in bed with foreign biotech companies," which she said stand to make billions of dollars by attaching patents to Australian wheat. She said this affiliation is compromising their research direction and adherence to safety regulations.
Click to expand...

Yet that was the purpose of the SCIENTIFIC GOVERNMENT RESEARCH they destroyed.... to see what, if any, effect the Modified wheat would have on humans.

More from the article....

No discussions

Greenpeace released a report recently called Australia's Wheat Scandal: The Biotech Takeover of our Daily Bread, in which they cite their concerns over GM wheat.

"I've read through it and I'm amazed at the number of errors within it," said Jacobs. "I find it very disconcerting and frustrating that they're putting this kind of information out into the public sphere."

After learning about the organisation's concerns, the ACPFG invited Greenpeace representatives to discuss the issues raised in greater detail, but according to Gilbert they've declined.

"The invitation is always open," said Gilbert. "I communicated with them after the report that there were a lot of problems ... a report is one thing, but trespassing and chopping someone's field trial down to the ground is a criminal activity."
Click to expand...

They put forth their propaganda but refuse to actually DISCUSS the issue with the Scientists? Imagine that, scientists who actually WANT to discuss their work and that of their critics. How refreshing. Perhaps the scientists studying GM wheat should simply declare a consensus, refuse to release data/calculations etc.... maybe that would convince the idiots in Greenpeace.

Yet more....

Responsibility claimed, now what?

Greenpeace has claimed responsibility for the sabotage on its website, and has even published the name of one of the protestors, a mother concerned for the safety of her children. Heather McCabe was quoted as saying: "This GM wheat should never have left the lab… GM wheat is not safe, and if the government can't protect the safety of my family, then I will."

"We are absolutely taking responsibility ... this mother was fully aware that it was an illegal action, potentially," said Kelly, who noted that the organisation would stand by her through all stages of the resulting investigation and any criminal charges she may face.

Normally these kinds of acts would be liable for criminal prosecution because there is malicious intent to damage property, but you could apply terrorism laws as well, says Ben Saul, a professor of counter-terrorism law at the University of Sydney.

He says it technically fits the bill of a terrorist act, which under Australian law, is defined as an act of criminal violence intended to coerce the government for an ideological purpose. "This was ideologically motivated, you could argue it was done to coerce the government to change its policy on genetically modified foods, and it was violent in that it destroyed private property," he said. But whether terrorism charges are actually laid will be up to the discretion of police and prosecutors, he says. "This would likely be seen as an excessive use of the anti-terrorism laws, which were ultimately not designed to interfere with a protest in a democratic society."

ACT Policing received a formal complaint from CSIRO following the break-in, and have begun an investigation into the allegations. They have not yet released any additional information. The OGTR has also been notified and is conducting another investigation.
Click to expand...

The Group claims responsibility for a terrorist act. They should be disbanded. This is NOT an issue of free speech. This is an issue of TERRORISM.
 
Superfreak said:
shhh.... be vewy vewy quiet.... liberals are busy concocting a response that will attempt to save face for Greenpeace.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm this is going to be difficult to explain to some one who has as profound a case of cognitive dissonance as you and since your a bit slow in the uptake in your reasoning skills not to mention incredibly niave, I'll type my answer to you slowly.

Maybe......iit's......because......you're......not........the......only.........one.........who.......believes.......in.......the.......law.
 
Superfreak said:
from the article....



Yet that was the purpose of the SCIENTIFIC GOVERNMENT RESEARCH they destroyed.... to see what, if any, effect the Modified wheat would have on humans.

More from the article....



They put forth their propaganda but refuse to actually DISCUSS the issue with the Scientists? Imagine that, scientists who actually WANT to discuss their work and that of their critics. How refreshing. Perhaps the scientists studying GM wheat should simply declare a consensus, refuse to release data/calculations etc.... maybe that would convince the idiots in Greenpeace.

Yet more....



The Group claims responsibility for a terrorist act. They should be disbanded. This is NOT an issue of free speech. This is an issue of TERRORISM.
Click to expand...
Oh lord, here we go again....OK Sweetheart, I'll type slow again. This time I'll use capital letters to make it easier for you to read.

NO....... THEY..... STILL..... HAVE..... FIRST..... AMMENDMENT...... RIGHTS. IF......THEY...... COMMITTED....... A...... CRIME....... THEY....... SHOULD...... BE...... HELD........ ACCOUNTABLE...... IN........ A...... COURT....... OF..... LAW!
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Terrorism. That's hilarious.
Click to expand...

Not shocked at all that you feel that way.... given that you are one of the leftwing nuts.

But do tell us.... how is it not terrorism? It is a violent act, driven by ideological beliefs, meant to sway the position of the government. How the hell is that not terrorism???
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I've told him a million times to never exaggerate!
Click to expand...

Yet another left wingnut who thinks the destruction of property, government research is not an act of terrorism.

I wonder, if I came and destroyed your home, would you feel the same way?

edit: to be clear, this is purely a hypothetical question
 
I guess the Australian government will sort that out, Stuporcreep.

Not you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top