The Forum > Article Comments > Greenpeace rejects violent tactics > Comments
Greenpeace rejects violent tactics : Comments
By Dan Cass, published 16/1/2006Dan Cass argues Graham Young should not be pitting himself against the mainstream media.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
- All
Posted by the usual suspect, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 1:41:47 PM
| |
Col, “Exploding population growth is what is going to ‘flush the human race down the pan’ ….”
Yes! “….and that is squarely a third world problem, the developed world operating at stable to negative population growth.” Nooooo! It is not by any stretch of the imagination only a third-world problem. I have been a Greenpeace supporter for umpteen years, but one of the biggest problems with them is their lack of effort or expression on population. This just does not sit at all well with their overall environmental ethic Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 1:48:35 PM
| |
Greenpeace - a left wing socialist organisation created during the cold-war to stop Western technology progressing, so that now defunct Eastern-block nations could play catch up. It was (is) staffed by bored middle-class academics and students who delude themselves that they are global saviours akin to Superman. It's time they grew up, stopped taking drugs, trashed their crystals and pyramids and stopped being spoiled little children.
They came from the late Twentieth Century and that's where they belong. Now they're an embarrassing anachronism. Someone should take their toys away and send those naughty children to bed without dinner. Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 1:59:29 PM
| |
PETA, interesting acronym, People Eat Tasty Animals, mmm yum, who would have thought. Grilled or baked.
Posted by All-, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 2:17:45 PM
| |
Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace has a lot to say about Greenpeace and why he left it back in 1986.
http://www.greenspirit.com/home.cfm http://www.greenspirit.com/21st_century.cfm He said he knew it was time to get out when Greenpeace initiated a pension plan for its staff members. He also realised that confrontation had to give way to the politics of building consensus, especially when the mainstream of human society had accepted that the environment is precious and must be protected. Whatever credibility Greenpeace had, has long gone. It is an organisation that is well past its "use-by date". Posted by Froggie, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 2:17:56 PM
| |
The word "ram" is being used in different contexts.
Greenpeace use the word "ram" in a broad sense, as in hit, strike or wedge. There's a photo showing that the collision was at the bow of the Artic Sunrise, so not misleading; perhaps ambigious if one reads the headline. Greenpeace critics are using the word "ram" in a more specific sense. Attacking by means of the prow of a ship, at speed. That is misleading. Then we have the marine lawyer, Eric Wilson, who uses "ram" as a collision involving the prow of the ship. In the NZ Herald article he says "it was the Greenpeace vessel which physically collided with the Nisshin Maru ... physically, materially, Greenpeace executed the ramming action." This statement is not misleading. Unfortunately, it seems the NZ Herald jazzed up the story. Instead of explaining what may have happened (360 degree turn), they said it DID happen, when no such independent conclusion can be reached. Poor guy! He's trying to be neutral, but falls into the hands of those who want to hear one side or the other of the story. According to Eric's email he says: "My overall impression of both reports is that there is a very dangerous game of 'chicken' going on in the Southern Ocean." (http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001108.html) Very well observed, Mr Wilson. Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 3:31:17 PM
|
Firstly to GrahamY - next time Mr Cass writes an article can you make sure he is tagged with his correct title. One of your editors mistakenly called him Greenpeace communication director instead of Greenpeace spin doctor.
Secondly to Tubley, if it wasn't for meat you probably wouldn't be here - there is ample evidence that our carnivorous lifestyle paved the way for brain development and higher consciousness. And remember, without farms there would be fewer cows, fewer sheep, fewer chickens. They are only alive in vast numbers because they are farmed. (Besides - if you still have a sex life you are obviously getting a bit of meat on the side, heh).
Kenny - There are species of whale which are abundant and could be sustainably harvested. But for some reason they are considered "majestic" whereas other more endangered animals don't get Greenpeace attention because they are not as cute. As for PETA - when they start hassling lions and tigers for eating animals (some of which are eaten alive) I might listen to there pleas for me to stop sitting down to a juicy steak.
Save a whale - harpoon Greenpeace.
t.u.s