Greenpeace needs to be dissolved

Superfreak said:
1) There was nothing funny about it.... it was quite pathetic
Click to expand...
Well of course you didn't find it funny Sweetheart....you didn't get it!
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.
Click to expand...
You set a stupid standard and then draw an illogical conclusion. By your standard we would have to disband both major Political parties who's members repetatively had committed far more criminal acts and far more serious criminal acts then Greenpeace have but I don't hear you calling to disband the Republican and Democratic parties, why is that? Then you're conclusion is beyond stupid, how do you conflate "Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law" with "Yet you continue to defend them."? The working mind fairly boggles! LOL

3) Not surprised that you would agree with that pathetic attempt at an analogy.
Click to expand...
I dunno.....maybe the fact that it was dead on accurate helped?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well of course you didn't find it funny Sweetheart....you didn't get it!
You set a stupid standard and then draw an illogical conclusion. By your standard we would have to disband both major Political parties who's members repetatively had committed far more criminal acts and far more serious criminal acts then Greenpeace have but I don't hear you calling to disband the Republican and Democratic parties, why is that? Then you're conclusion is beyond stupid, how do you conflate "Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law" with "Yet you continue to defend them."? The working mind fairly boggles! LOL

I dunno.....maybe the fact that it was dead on accurate helped?
Click to expand...

If the GOP or DNC took responsibility for criminal acts of individual members, some might find that reason to disband, no?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well of course you didn't find it funny....you didn't get it!
Click to expand...

Sure Mott... it was hilarious... really... quit your job and become a stand up... you will go far.

You set a stupid standard and then draw an illogical conclusion.
Click to expand...

Please, do elaborate.... what is the stupid standard you refer to?

Do tell us.... did Greenpeace members in the name of Greenpeace plan and execute a criminal action?

Do tell us... AFTER that act was committed, did the GROUP condone the action or condemn it?

By your standard we would have to disband both major Political parties who's members repetatively had committed far more criminal acts and far more serious criminal acts then Greenpeace have but I don't hear you calling to disband them, why is that?
Click to expand...

Ah... so now we have the part where our poor little moron tries to deflect the topic onto politicians. Stay on topic little fool.... this thread is about Greenpeace and its ILLEGAL actions. No matter how many other groups you try to point to, that will remain true.

Then you're conclusion is beyond stupid, how do you conflate "Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law" with "Yet you continue to defend them."? The working mind fairly boggles! LOL
Click to expand...

You truly are an idiot. You said multiple times that we could not hold the group accountable for the actions of the individuals. You also rambled on about protecting their 'first amendment rights' blah blah blah.

The group is guilty. There is no need for a trial given the FACT that they ADMITTED to doing it. The GROUP supports the actions AS THEY STATED. The group should be disbanded. Plain and simple.

I dunno.....maybe the fact that it was dead on accurate helped?
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO......

So you think Dung mowing his OWN lawn = breaking into a government facility and destroying research??? To you... THAT is 'dead on accurate'????
 
"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."
LOL Only the brain dead can look on intentional and blatant vandalism as "protest". Green Peace may have good intentions, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Green Peace is often involved with actions which result in destruction of property. They are NOT a legitimate "protest" organization. Their methods are extremist. While they have not (yet) actively targeted people, many of their methods reveals they do not care if people get hurt as long as their message gets publicity.

Disbanding Green Peace may be going a bit far. After all, we do believe in the right to free assembly. However, the governments of nations world wide need to start prosecuting actions of vandalism and destruction. They need to go after the leadership, since they openly condone illegal activities, as well as any and all active participants in these kinds of actions. Hit them criminally and civilly. Make them pay for damages done - maybe people will get tired of their donations going to pay off fines imposed for vandalism. Maybe if the current leadership and extremist activists gets their useless asses tossed in the pokey where they belong, any remainder who believe in the message of Green Peace, but willing to stay within legal means of expressing their message, can take over.
 
Good Luck said:
"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."
LOL Only the brain dead can look on intentional and blatant vandalism as "protest". Green Peace may have good intentions, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Green Peace is often involved with actions which result in destruction of property. They are NOT a legitimate "protest" organization. Their methods are extremist. While they have not (yet) actively targeted people, many of their methods reveals they do not care if people get hurt as long as their message gets publicity.

Disbanding Green Peace may be going a bit far. After all, we do believe in the right to free assembly. However, the governments of nations world wide need to start prosecuting actions of vandalism and destruction. They need to go after the leadership, since they openly condone illegal activities, as well as any and all active participants in these kinds of actions. Hit them criminally and civilly. Make them pay for damages done - maybe people will get tired of their donations going to pay off fines imposed for vandalism. Maybe if the current leadership and extremist activists gets their useless asses tossed in the pokey where they belong, any remainder who believe in the message of Green Peace, but willing to stay within legal means of expressing their message, can take over.
Click to expand...

protests can be peaceful or violent or contain acts of vandalism. doesn't mean they aren't protests, simply means one is legal, the other is not.

do you consider the boston tea party a protest or merely vandalism?
 
Good Luck said:
"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."
LOL Only the brain dead can look on intentional and blatant vandalism as "protest". Green Peace may have good intentions, but as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Green Peace is often involved with actions which result in destruction of property. They are NOT a legitimate "protest" organization. Their methods are extremist. While they have not (yet) actively targeted people, many of their methods reveals they do not care if people get hurt as long as their message gets publicity.

Disbanding Green Peace may be going a bit far. After all, we do believe in the right to free assembly. However, the governments of nations world wide need to start prosecuting actions of vandalism and destruction. They need to go after the leadership, since they openly condone illegal activities, as well as any and all active participants in these kinds of actions. Hit them criminally and civilly. Make them pay for damages done - maybe people will get tired of their donations going to pay off fines imposed for vandalism. Maybe if the current leadership and extremist activists gets their useless asses tossed in the pokey where they belong, any remainder who believe in the message of Green Peace, but willing to stay within legal means of expressing their message, can take over.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with your logic. I pretty much agree. Those who use a "The ends justify the means" rationale had better be ready to pay the price when it puts them on the wrong side of the law. I'd apply that to any sort of political extremism, not just the environmental kind.
 
Annie said:
If the GOP or DNC took responsibility for criminal acts of individual members, some might find that reason to disband, no?
Click to expand...
I'm sure some would be but that's not my point. My point is, is that you can't deny someone their right to free association because a member of an association they belong to has comitted a crime. Their are a few exceptions, such as belonging to an association that calls for the over throw of the US Government. Their may be others I'm not aware of that are constitutional, that's about the only one I can think of.
 
Sterling Archer said:
Attacking a government non-military target with an expressed political or ideological intent to discourage further policies is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Click to expand...


"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.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Side note moron.... when you break and enter a government facility with the intent on destruction of property.... yes.... THAT is an attack. You are latching on to Mott's definition that terrorism must pose a risk of injury/death. Which is false.
 
Superfreak said:
Side note moron.... when you break and enter a government facility with the intent on destruction of property.... yes.... THAT is an attack. You are latching on to Mott's definition that terrorism must pose a risk of injury/death. Which is false.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Superfreak said:
The above brought to you by the same moron who brought us:

'mowing my OWN yard is the same as Greenpeace breaking onto a government research facility and destroying property/research'
Click to expand...


The above is brought to you by the idiot who thinks running a weed-whacker is a terrorist act.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Destruction of property/breaking and entering ARE acts of violence you retard.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
The above is brought to you by the idiot who thinks running a weed-whacker is a terrorist act.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top