The Recreation Commons : third floor.

[Hercules]

Greenpeace sometimes skirts the border of "terrorist organization" . . .

In my view they do not skirt the border at all. They may have adapted some of the techniquies. But seriously, terrorrising nations, populations, kidnapping people. No not really.

Aggressive protest organisation yes. but so can be the church , trade unions and the countrytside grouping (UK)

[Lemmy]

Aggressive protest organisation yes. but so can be the church , trade unions and the countrytside grouping (UK)

who says the church isn't a terrorist organization?
Scaring people like that with all the hell talk. What is more scary then eternal suffering!

[Pandemoniak]

All depends on waht we consider terrorism. If we take it as the word is meant to be, using terror as a political pressure, then many things become terrorism. And Greenpeace certainly not the last.

[GeneralTacticus]

who says the church isn't a terrorist organization?
Scaring people like that with all the hell talk. What is more scary then eternal suffering!

All depends on waht we consider terrorism. If we take it as the word is meant to be, using terror as a political pressure, then many things become terrorism. And Greenpeace certainly not the last.

Like the US government, you mean? By their own definition, they've been committing terrorism on a massive scale for decades.

[Pandemoniak]

I'd even say they were born as a terrorist country, since they used terror as a political pressure against England for their independence. Terror failed though, and they had to use force.
As well, resistants in Europe during WWII were terrorists, etc...
Theres always the two faces : terrorist or fighter of freedom ?
Since Greenpeace uses terror and "coup d'éclat" to promote political ideals and create a pressure, I think they can be called terrorists. The bad thing is that they certainly cannot be taken for fighters of freedom.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd even say they were born as a terrorist country, since they used terror as a political pressure against England for their independence. Terror failed though, and they had to use force.

And they followed this up with a continuing war of expansion and genocide against westward against the Native American Indians.

As well, resistants in Europe during WWII were terrorists, etc...

They generally aren't thought of as such because the Nazis began the terror first.

Theres always the two faces : terrorist or fighter of freedom ?

Since Greenpeace uses terror and "coup d'éclat" to promote political ideals and create a pressure, I think they can be called terrorists. The bad thing is that they certainly cannot be taken for fighters of freedom.

Quite.

[Drogue]

Like the US government, you mean? By their own definition, they've been committing terrorism on a massive scale for decades.

Or like the Firefighters strike in the UK. 'Give us more money, or we'll put peoples' lives at risk.', thats terrorism to me.

[GeneralTacticus]

No, I'm talking about terrorism on amuch bigger scale; bombing entire cities in North Vietnam into rubble because the didn't like the government, blockading Nicaragua and aiding an internal terrorist army for the same reason, backing Nazi-esque death squads in El Salvador, deliberately bombing out most of Iraq's water filtration plants during the Gulf War, and the list goes on...

[Drogue]

Very true. The US style government is exactly what we don't want on Chiron, and what I feel Voltaire is getting us closer and closer too

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Drogue

Or like the Firefighters strike in the UK. 'Give us more money, or we'll put peoples' lives at risk.', thats terrorism to me.

In such conditions, the army is supposed to take place in case of emergency -- like when Police, Firemen, Garbage evacuators stirkes. Why the british army didnt do its job ? Was it too busy to plan irak invasion or am I just a paranoid extreme-leftist ?

[GeneralTacticus]

Maybe they're just not as effective as actual firefighters, so people's lives would still be being put at risk?

[Pandemoniak]

I believe the budget of army is far more expensive than the budget of firefighter. Its just they never really trained the army to fight fire, when they should have, since its the army duty to be ready for any emergency.

[GeneralTacticus]

They're onyl meant to be stand-ins if the regular emergency services aren't there, so I think it's understandable that they weren't trained quite so extensively. If the army can do anything the others can do, why bother having the others at all?

[Pandemoniak]

They should be capable to do everything, but with less "professionalism". I'm quite positive there is a firefighter section in the army, though.
And even if its understandable that they arent as trained as firemen, its unfair to say firemen behaved as terrorists.

[Drogue]

They did step in, with 50 year old 'Green-Goddesses' for fire engines (top speed 35mph) and about 1/3 as much troops as firefighters. Unions, and strikes, are IMO just like cartels. Cartels try to keep prices up unnaturally (as in higher than they would be with a true FM or Planned economy) and unions try to keep wages up unnaturally. However this is getting a little off topic. Barkeep, I need a black-stuff to clear my head.

So... Anbody seen Pande's latest film?