Terrorism in Texas. Twenty SUVs Damaged in Texas Attack.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Osweld, they created more pollution by buring the stuff. If you properly disspose of the thing after you use them it will cause far less polution. So they created more polution and wasted the materials they were made out of!!

Let's use the warehouse as an example.

The warehouse is a workplace for people and a storage unit for industry. Everyday people drive to it in their cars for work. Goods are produced in factories which are shiped to the warehouse in planes, trucks, or ships. The goods are then transported from the warehouse into stores where people buy it, use it, and throw it out.* This goes on for decades, untill the warehouse is abandoned. When abandoned, it falls into disrepair and begins decaying and rusting untill it is demolished, where it is then destroyed and if "properly disposed of" recycled into a new building which then repeats the process. It does not reach the end of it's "life" untill the materials are no longer being recycled and are left in a scrap heap to decay. Burning it brings it straight to the scrap heap.

*I could go into how it causes pollution through providing jobs, infrastructure to indsustry and all the other various branch offs, but that would get a bit long...

[MRT144]

Osweld, how about rebuilding the warehouse? does that cause even more pollution than normal? probably does, dolt.

[Japher]

That's a silly argument Osweld. Recycling doesn't cause more pollution, nor does natural decay in any real sense, than does outright destruction... Besides, burning down a warehouse doesn't mean that those who worked there are just going to sit on their hands. On the contrary, they will reap the land of more natural resources to rebuild what was destroyed... Thus, more pollution, using your logic.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MRT144
Osweld, how about rebuilding the warehouse? does that cause even more pollution than normal? probably does, dolt.

As I said in my little example, it would eventually be abaonded and rebuilt anyways. No difference.

[MRT144]

osweld! THEY BURNT IT DOWN CAUSING MORE POLLUTION! The extremes you go to justify your own agenda is ridiculous!

[General Ludd]

They aren't creating more pollution and they aren't preventing any pollution, they're just throwing a wrench into the gears of industry and civilization.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Osweld


As I said in my little example, it would eventually be abaonded and rebuilt anyways. No difference.

No it would not, the fire cause more pollution and DOES NOT STOP POLLUTION.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sava
I agree they are nutbags, but I can't say I'm shedding tears for those dealers or the SUV's...

You can add my name to that. People who drive SUV's are selfish arseholes who put everyone else at risk.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MRT144
osweld! THEY BURNT IT DOWN CAUSING MORE POLLUTION! The extremes you go to justify your own agenda is ridiculous!

I just demonstrated to you how they are not causing more pollution... 'shouting' isn't going to change the fact.


And who says this is my agenda?

[MRT144]

an abandoned building causes less pollution than one burning.

and throwing a wrench into industry and civilization on that scale doesnt do **** but piss people like me off. Remember, the people who are opposed to enviro mental retards are the ones with the guns.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Agathon


You can add my name to that. People who drive SUV's are selfish arseholes who put everyone else at risk.

What about SUVs that get 20 miles to the gallon? What about hybrid SUVs? dont lump all into one.

[Japher]

Remember, the people who are opposed to enviro mental retards are the ones with the guns

Decissions, decissions

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Osweld


I just demonstrated to you how they are not causing more pollution... 'shouting' isn't going to change the fact.


And who says this is my agenda?

If you let the warehouse just sit there after you are done using it, or tear it down and recycle the materials, you cause far less polution then burning it down.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MRT144
an abandoned building causes less pollution than one burning.

Not really. Having the materials decay and seep into the environment slowly isn't any better then shooting it all out in a big burst of flame.

and throwing a wrench into industry and civilization on that scale doesnt do **** but piss people like me off.

That's the general idea, I think. And the damage isn't insignifgant, either.

Recycling doesn't cause more pollution

It does by sustaining industry - if we did not recycle we'd burn up all the resources and our industry would collapse.

nor does natural decay in any real sense

And what's more natural then fire? It's nature's favorite tool for cleaning up.

If you let the warehouse just sit there after you are done using it, or tear it down and recycle the materials, you cause far less polution then burning it down.

Sorry, but that's just not true. For one thing, there is no way they are going to leave it there and let nature reclaim, they'll tear it down and scrap it, or use it to build a new fun and pollution spewing factory in it's place. Eitherway, the materials are going to seep back into the environemnt one way or the other. Whether that's through smoke or soil/water contamination doesn't really matter.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Sandman
This is not terrorism.