Greenpeace needs to be dissolved

[Cancel 2016.2]

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!

UM.... AGAIN.... MORON.... DESTRUCTION.... OF ....PROPERTY... IS.... NOT..... A.... FIRST....AMENDMENT...... RIGHT.

THERE..... IS..... NO ..... IF ..... THEY .... DID.... IT.... THEY....ADMITTED .....TO.... DOING.... SO

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, according to Mott and Dung, destruction of government research facilities is NOT an act of terrorism.

Any other left wing morons wish to proclaim their own level of stupidity.... let's have a contest... can any of the rest of you nuts top the utter stupidity of Mott and Dung?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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

How comes I had a feeling that joke would go over your head? LOL Get it? ....a million times?....never exaggerate??

Sweetheart, get serious, equating an act of vandalism with terrorism is not only hyperbole but it also trivializes terrorism and makes you look pretty dumb to boot.

 

[Bonestorm]

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???

So when I cut my lawn I am engaged in a violent act? If they blew the fields up or did something that posed some risk to human life or carried a risk of bodily injury I could see the argument, but cutting down seedlings with weed-whackers? Get real.

 

[Annie]

Ecoterrorism predates 9/11.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/e/g/Ecoterrorism.htm

 

[Mott the Hoople]

UM.... AGAIN.... MORON.... DESTRUCTION.... OF ....PROPERTY... IS.... NOT..... A.... FIRST....AMENDMENT...... RIGHT.

THERE..... IS..... NO ..... IF ..... THEY .... DID.... IT.... THEY....ADMITTED .....TO.... DOING.... SO

Well Sweetheart speaking slow didn't work.....maybe someone else can explain to you in simple terms that you can understand that just because a member(s) of an advocacy group commit a crime doesn't mean that you can take away the first ammendment rights to all the members of that group. If that were true, they would have to take Fox News off the air!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How comes I had a feeling that joke would go over your head? LOL Get it? ....a million times?....never exaggerate??

Sweetheart, get serious, equating an act of vandalism with terrorism is not only hyperbole but it also trivializes terrorism and makes you look pretty dumb to boot.

LMAO.... sorry moron, but equating this to a simple act of vandalism is what makes you and the other left wing Greenpeace apologists look fucking retarded.

This isn't a bunch of liberals throwing trash cans through windows or spray painting graffiti.

This is an ORGANIZED group that planned a course of action to destroy a government research facility and the work of the government scientists for ideological reasons. That is NOT the act of a vandal.... it is the act of a terrorist.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ecoterrorism predates 9/11.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/e/g/Ecoterrorism.htm

Hell yea it does. Are you familiar with ELF (Environmental Liberation Front)? Now they are true terrorist and if apprehended should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well Sweetheart speaking slow didn't work.....maybe someone else can explain to you in simple terms that you can understand that just because a member(s) of an advocacy group commit a crime doesn't mean that you can take away the first ammendment rights to all the members of that group. If that were true, they would have to take Fox News off the air!

Again moron, perhaps it is you that needs someone to go even slower in explaining the situation to you. THE GROUP claimed responsibility. To DISBAND that GROUP does not take away the rights of free speech to any of the individuals. IT MEANS THE GROUP IS DISBANDED FOR SUPPORTING AND SPONSORING AND ILLEGAL ACTION.

Also moron, yes.... we see your desperation.... any time a liberal tries to defend the indefensible.... they try to bring up Fox News.... and pretend that by saying 'Fox News' somehow their idiocy will be absolved.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So, according to Mott and Dung, destruction of government research facilities is NOT an act of terrorism.

Any other left wing morons wish to proclaim their own level of stupidity.... let's have a contest... can any of the rest of you nuts top the utter stupidity of Mott and Dung?

seriously....this act, IMO, does not rise to the level of terrorism and i agree with Saul, to charge this act as an act of terrorism is likely to be considered an excessive us of the terrorist laws. again, i'm speaking just for this act, not other acts likes arson and destruction on a grand scale.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

LMAO.... sorry moron, but equating this to a simple act of vandalism is what makes you and the other left wing Greenpeace apologists look fucking retarded.

This isn't a bunch of liberals throwing trash cans through windows or spray painting graffiti.

This is an ORGANIZED group that planned a course of action to destroy a government research facility and the work of the government scientists for ideological reasons. That is NOT the act of a vandal.... it is the act of a terrorist.

interestingly:

The Australian Academy of Science also condemned the crop destruction. “For an organisation that claims to be dedicated to the protection of the environment, this is an unconscionable act," said the academy president Suzanne Cory.

“This kind of mindless vandalism against science is completely unacceptable.”

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So when I cut my lawn I am engaged in a violent act? If they blew the fields up or did something that posed some risk to human life or carried a risk of bodily injury I could see the argument, but cutting down seedlings with weed-whackers? Get real.

ROFLMAO.... wow, such desperation....

Is it YOUR lawn? yes... you are the property owner.... so your pathetic analogy is a complete FAIL right there.

Tell you what Dung.... go break into a government research facility, destroy the research in that facility and then come on back and tell the government how its really no big deal.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

interestingly:

The Australian Academy of Science also condemned the crop destruction. “For an organisation that claims to be dedicated to the protection of the environment, this is an unconscionable act," said the academy president Suzanne Cory.

“This kind of mindless vandalism against science is completely unacceptable.”

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."

You should have kept on reading Yurt....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So when I cut my lawn I am engaged in a violent act? If they blew the fields up or did something that posed some risk to human life or carried a risk of bodily injury I could see the argument, but cutting down seedlings with weed-whackers? Get real.

My point exactly. He undermines his very point by exagerating the distinction between vandalism and terrorism. Then he misses the point that we essentially agree with him. Those who break the law should pay the consequences for doing so. Then to add insult to injury he let a perfectly good joke go right over his head! LOL

 

[Bonestorm]

ROFLMAO.... wow, such desperation....

Is it YOUR lawn? yes... you are the property owner.... so your pathetic analogy is a complete FAIL right there.

That's a stupid response. Whether the act is "violent" should not be dependent on the object subject to the act. Like, say I bombed my lawn with Molotov Cocktails. That's be a violent act regardless of ownership of the lawn. Likewise with weed-whacking plants. It just isn't a violent act. It's a criminal act if the plants aren't yours, but it isn't violent and it isn't "terrorist" if the plants are the government's.

Tell you what Dung.... go break into a government research facility, destroy the research in that facility and then come on back and tell the government how its really no big deal.

So we have one of two choices do we? It's either "no big deal" or its "terrorism?" That's sensible.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

seriously....this act, IMO, does not rise to the level of terrorism and i agree with Saul, to charge this act as an act of terrorism is likely to be considered an excessive us of the terrorist laws. again, i'm speaking just for this act, not other acts likes arson and destruction on a grand scale.

You should have kept on reading Yurt....

actually you should have...and i already commented on it in a prior post...how interesting you don't highlight this section:

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."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LMAO.... sorry moron, but equating this to a simple act of vandalism is what makes you and the other left wing Greenpeace apologists look fucking retarded.

This isn't a bunch of liberals throwing trash cans through windows or spray painting graffiti.

This is an ORGANIZED group that planned a course of action to destroy a government research facility and the work of the government scientists for ideological reasons. That is NOT the act of a vandal.... it is the act of a terrorist.

Here you go Sweetheart.

Vandalism - The deliberate act of damaging or destroying public or private property.

Terrorism - The use of violence to achieve a political aim.

and before you go there.

Violence - Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, injure, or kill someone.

Since their was no intent by Greenpeace to hurt, injure or kill someone nor was anyone hurt, injured or killed, then this would clearly be an act of vandalism and should be prosecuted as such.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

My point exactly. He undermines his very point by exagerating the distinction between vandalism and terrorism. Then he misses the point that we essentially agree with him. Those who break the law should pay the consequences for doing so. Then to add insult to injury he let a perfectly good joke go right over his head! LOL

1) There was nothing funny about it.... it was quite pathetic
2) You have stated multiple times that Greenpeace should not be disbanded, even though the GROUP claims responsibility for a CRIMINAL ACT whether you want to call it vandalism or terrorism, it is still a CRIMINAL ACT that the group is responsible for. Yet you continue to defend them.

3) Not surprised that you would agree with that pathetic attempt at an analogy.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

seriously....this act, IMO, does not rise to the level of terrorism and i agree with Saul, to charge this act as an act of terrorism is likely to be considered an excessive us of the terrorist laws. again, i'm speaking just for this act, not other acts likes arson and destruction on a grand scale.

I agree.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here you go Sweetheart.

Vandalism - The deliberate act of damaging or destroying public or private property.

Terrorism - The use of violence to achieve a political aim.

and before you go there.

Violence - Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, injure, or kill someone.

Since their was no intent by Greenpeace to hurt, injure or kill someone nor was anyone hurt, injured or killed, then this would clearly be an act of vandalism and should be prosecuted as such.

So now breaking and entering and destruction of property is not to be considered a violent act? Good to know..... again, hypothetically speaking... if someone were to break into your home and destroy your property.... would you still consider that non-violent? Yes/no? Obviously feel free to elaborate.

Also... in terms of violent crimes... take a look at the fourth from the bottom and tell us what it says....

Types

Below are some forms of violent crimes outlawed by governmental legal entities:[citation needed]
Type Meaning
Abuse To exploit or harm a vulnerable person
Child abuse Cruelty to children; the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under 18 except when national law defines a younger age. However even in states where the age of majority is 18 child abuse may be defined differently; in England and Wales, the Children and Young Persons Act uses the age of sixteen.
Sexual abuse The act of injuring a person during sexual activity without mutual consent for the gratification of the abuser.
Child sexual abuse When an adult forces a minor to engage in sexual activity, especially without regard for the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of the child who, by government law, cannot consent since it is believed that anyone under the age of consent does not have the physical and emotional maturity to understand sexual acts in an adult fashion.
Child-on-child sexual abuse When a minor abuses another child sexually. No adult is involved.
Assault and battery An assault involving actual bodily contact
Assault An unlawful physical attack upon another or threat to do violence to another
Aggravated assault Assault with the use of weapons or in other circumstances beyond the realm of normal assault
Sexual assault When a person—regardless of gender—forcefully engages another person in sexual activity without mutual consent.
Battery An unlawful attack upon another person by beating or wounding, or by touching in an offensive manner
Aggravated battery
Sexual battery
Cruelty to animals A cruel act upon an animal
Domestic violence Acts of violence against a person living in one's household or a member of one's immediate family
Harassment
Sexual harassment
Homicide The killing of another human being
Murder Homicide in certain prescribed conditions
Aggravated murder This is defined very differently in different jurisdictions. It can cover parricide, the murder of a family member, especially in Catholic majority countries; it can also include murder followed by necrophilia or desecration/mutilation of the corpse, racially motivated murder, use of an explosive, killing as part of a campaign of sedition or terrorism, or killing of a law enforcement officer (policeman, prosecutor, prison officer, judge)
Sexual murder Murder with a paraphiliac motive or to cover up a sex crime. This is not usually a separate offence but is often considered more serious than other forms of murder and is very likely to incur the death penalty in jurisdictions that retain it, or the maximum term of imprisonment allowed in those that do not.
Property damage Damage to another's property (i.e.: breaking of things, burning, or harming in a devastating manner)
Rape The unlawful compelling of someone through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse
Statutory rape Consensual sexual relations between an adult and a person below the local age of consent.
Robbery Use of force or threat of force in the commission of theft.