Greenpeace members threaten global warming "deniers"

SLUSK

On Greenpeace official blog a member threatens "global warming deniers" You can read statements like this: "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few." http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html To me it's obvious that Greenpeace is nothing but a criminal environmental-fascist group and should be treated as such. Why does Greenpeace feel it has to threaten people if it is not criminal organization?

Heroditas

I bet they won't threaten the French like that though!

SLUSK

Heroditas wrote: »

I bet they won't threaten the French like that though!

I wonder how the environmentalists here at boards.ie will defend this.

Judgement Day

Heroditas wrote: »

I bet they won't threaten the French like that though!

Is that supposed to be a clever statement? I take it that you approve of the French government murdering environmentalists or you somehow see some humour in it? :mad:

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/rainbow-warrior

Judgement Day

SLUSK wrote: »

On Greenpeace official blog a member threatens "global warming deniers" You can read statements like this: "We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few." http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html To me it's obvious that Greenpeace is nothing but a criminal environmental-fascist group and should be treated as such. Why does Greenpeace feel it has to threaten people if it is not criminal organization?

As usual your post is total nonsense - what is it with you and the environment? Incidentally, talk of calling the pot black regarding fascism - this from your post in the Politics forum yesterday in the thread: 'Ordinary people pay with their lives for your bleeding hearts'.... "Talking back to a police officer is not a crime, stealing stuff is. If you shoplift you deserve to be whipped unconscious.

Heroditas

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is that supposed to be a clever statement? I take it that you approve of the French government murdering environmentalists or you somehow see some humour in it? :mad:

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/nuclear-free-new-zealand/rainbow-warrior

Whether I do or not, do you approve of Greenpeace's statement?

If they're going to make statements like this:

If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

They'd better be prepared to back these statements up.
Statements like these do more harm than good for ANY organization, be it political, environmental, economical or spiritual.

Acting the tough guy isn't particularly smart.

Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: "The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws."

They'd better not complain if they get a bloody nose.

Judgement Day

I have looked at the Greenpeace blog link and that's precisely what it is an open blog with nutters and bona fide campaigners from both sides of the debate speaking frankly. What comes out on the blog is not official Greenpeace policy. I am not a member of Greenpeace, or indeed, any other environmental organisation although I have been in various wildlife organisations in the past but I feel that on balance they are a force for good in the world. It is largely down to Greenpeace that France's ridiculous nuclear testing in the Moruroa Atoll eventually ended in 1996. What was it all for anyway given that the French would never use nuclear weapons?

Heroditas

Judgement Day wrote: »

I have looked at the Greenpeace blog link and that's precisely what it is an open blog with nutters and bona fide campaigners from both sides of the debate speaking frankly. What comes out on the blog is not official Greenpeace policy.

Then they should have more sense than to allow material like that on their official website.

Would you say the same thing if it was a governmental website/blog?

Judgement Day

Heroditas wrote: »

Then they should have more sense than to allow material like that on their official website.

Would you say the same thing if it was a governmental website/blog?

But it wouldn't would it! Governments don't believe in honest open/OTT discussions or open blogs. The nearest thing is Mary McAleese's nonsense website here: http://www.yourcountryyourcall.com/ where all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas are put foward but, even here, negative comment is soon removed. I doubt Mary McAleese officially approved of some of the suggestions such as the one mentioned here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055831269

Heroditas

Judgement Day wrote: »

But it wouldn't would it! Governments don't believe in honest open/OTT discussions or open blogs.

Less of the conspiracy theories please

Judgement Day wrote: »

The nearest thing is Mary McAleese's nonsense website here: http://www.yourcountryyourcall.com/ where all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas are put foward but, even here, negative comment is soon removed. I doubt Mary McAleese officially approved of some of the suggestions such as the one mentioned here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055831269

It's actually her husband who has been involved in that website.
I fail to see what it has to do with the topic in question.

Judgement Day

Heroditas wrote: »

Less of the conspiracy theories please.




It's actually her husband who has been involved in that website.
I fail to see what it has to do with the topic in question.

I'm afraid I can't help it if you can't see the connection and as for 'Your Country Your Call' it's Mary's face that adorns the Home page and her video NOT Martin.

Heroditas

Judgement Day wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't help it if you can't see the connection and as for 'Your Country Your Call' it's Mary's face that adorns the Home page and her video NOT Martin.

And again, what has it got to do with the Greenpeace blog and the topic we're discussing?

Marcelproust

SLUSK wrote: »

I wonder how the environmentalists here at boards.ie will defend this.

They won't and they don't have to.

Also, its possible to be an environmentalist, and not believe everything, without question, which is said or done under the environmental umbrella.

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, left the movement when he felt it was hijacked and used to further the agenda of some who are less interested in truth and more interested in activism, power and protest for their own sake.

He said "...The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s, just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda. This was because many environmentalists couldn't make the transition from confrontation to consensus, and could not get out of adversarial politics..."

It's obvious to many that Greenpeace is no longer interested in working towards solutions, but in furthering its own agenda which appears to be to get bigger and bigger first, and solving problems or issues second.