Eco terrorists is psychiatrist Dr. Tanveer Ahmed's description of climate protesters who, he believes, are getting "nuttier and nuttier", mingling their personal resentment with political ideology.

The protesters' personal lives have not gone the way they would have liked; so they protest against civilisation. It's all about them and their mania to be noticed.

"Performative victimhood" is the title for their behaviour. They are trying to deal with their own psychological problems. 'Look at me. Look at me'.

The infantile protesters are not helped by parents telling them how 'anxious' they are. Actually, it is the anxiety of the parents themselves and the leaders of the "apoplectic culture" who have lied to them and reacted disproportionately to climate change who are the real problem.

A common feature of despicable authoritarian regimes is they label non violent protestors
terrorists".

And not only is a certain psychiatrist doing the same, but you are too: you ludicrously accuse them as protesting against civilisation!

In reality, civilisation would be a lot better if everyone valued the environment.

I doubt the protestors' stunts will really achieve anything much, but they're certainly not terrorists.

I thought that the term - ecoterrorists applied only
to extremists. Most protesters for saving our environment
are peaceful and -
are not eco-terrorists. I can't imagine people like
David Attenborough contaminating water supplies, destroying
energy utilities, deploying anthrax and other biological
agents to make a point.

Eco-terrorism has also been used in war. For example in the
1960s and 70s the US military used Agent Orange to destroy
forest cover in Vietnam. And, in 1991 Iraqi military forces
retreating during the Persian Gulf War set fire to Kuwaiti
oil wells causing significant environmental damage. The Roma
Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998
defines such destruction as a war crime.

Britannica has much more:

http://britannica.com/topic/ecoterrorism

but they're certainly not terrorists.
Aidan,
They are social terrorists i.e. Soldiers of parasitism !

indyvidual,

Please be more specific.

Sound bytes and sloganeering carries no weight.

Tanveer Ahmed is not a "regime", he is giving his personal opinion that these protests against other people's property, and the damage done, is a form of terrorism. He is also a working psychiatrist fully qualified to describe the problems these protesters have with their lives, and the motives they have for their actions.

I have not expressed any opinion of my own. Others are welcome to express their opinions.

However, now that the word 'extremists' has entered the conversation, I will say that I think that glueing yourself to priceless works of art, roadways etc. is extreme, and totally out of all proportion - never mind useless and juvenile. So, 'terrorist' is a fitting word

Sound bytes and sloganeering carries no weight.
Foxy,
Quite a lot more than not thinking with blinkers on !

After losing the science debate on climate change hands down, the crackpot deniers are now looking for other avenues to vent their spleen on what is an obvious undeniable fact, climate change is real and without immediate action the consequences are too catastrophic to contemplate. The real "terrorists" are the deniers, their ostrich approach of putting their heads in the sand terrifies me, and all people of reason. If demolishing the pyramids, stone by stone, would save the planet, then I would say; "goodbye pyramids"!

ttbn,
>Tanveer Ahmed is not a "regime",
I never says he was. But mislabeling people "terrorists" is a tool of despotic regimes, and anyone who does so should be called out on it no matter what their psychiatric qualifications.

>I have not expressed any opinion of my own
Your initial post did not make it clear, and your lack of questioning implied you concur.

> I think that glueing yourself to priceless works of art, roadways etc. is extreme, and
> totally out of all proportion - never mind useless and juvenile. So, 'terrorist' is a
> fitting word
Except they didn't glue themselves to priceless works of art; they glued themselves to the protective glass that covers priceless works of art. There's quite a big difference! The former is cultural vandalism and should be dealt with severely; the latter is merely a protesting stunt of no real harm to anyone.

Gluing themselves to roads is different. Depending on the road, there may be a high economic cost, so they could be regarded as saboteurs. But their actions weren't violent, so they aren't terrorists.

______________________________________________________________________

Indy,
>They are social terrorists i.e. Soldiers of parasitism !
Except they're not terrorists (they don't resort to violence or threaten people's lives).
And they're not soldiers.
And they're not of parasitism! Quite the opposite: they're protesting against parasitism and for sustainability.

Aidan

Whatever. You do bang on.

" If demolishing the pyramids, stone by stone, would save the planet, then I would say; "goodbye pyramids"!"

And it would be just as effective in appeasing the CO2-Gods as any of the other policies currently in place.

(they don't resort to violence or threaten people's lives).
Aidan
More people have & are dying without violence, all it needs is uncaring & incompetent & selfish people & presto-innocent people will die !

Active protest aka social terrorism has been effective in the past eg suffragettes (votes for women), civil rights and anti-nuclear movements. Some suffragette protestors in the UK attacked works of art. Mostly these movements disowned violent protesters (who were a minority) but there's no doubt the violent actions made front-page news and focussed attention on the issues. Of course it's not just 'progressives' and 'left wingers' who do this, see Jan 6, and Taliban destroying artworks.

Again, I would have to agree with TTBN. I think the good Doctor is on the money when he describes some of these demonstrators as being nuttier and nuttier. Moreover, I'm not entirely sure what I believe about this whole question of 'climate change'. There have been dire predictions, to utter refutation. And the truth; who knows where?

But what I do know, these demonstrators with their civil disobedience and disruptive behaviour, are not helping things if the Climate is deleteriously in danger of changing. Co-operative minds are what's needed not puerile, fatuous behaviour.

Therefore in our own way our family try not to pollute the atmosphere, nor thoughtlessly discard our hard rubbish before consigning it into appropriate receptacles in a way that's recommended, or directed, by our local Council.

Am I wrong? I dunno. Though I'm sure our current crop of scientists at the CSIRO and other eminent academics know a hell've a lot more about it, than I do. So obediently, like the proverbial sheep, I try to follow their rules and recommendations.

I think there will be an escalation of protests as they find no one
takes any real notice and frustration will drive them to action that
will result in violence.
Paul, there are holes in the so called settled science.
The rising co2 does increase temperature but it is not linear.
Still, we are on the verge of a fall in temperature in the next 50 to 100 years.
The next "Maunder Minimum" is due somewhere around 600 to 1000 years
after the last one around 1800.

Anyway, as an aside I have several boxes of Tulip seedlings for sale.
Any takers ?

"I'll never forget what they've done and I'll never forgive what they have done.'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11408709/Man-blasts-Just-Stop-Oil-M25-stunt-caused-miss-fathers-FUNERAL.html

Tantrums are meant to inflict pain on others. 'Agree with me or suffer the consequences'.

Hey Aiden,

"A common feature of despicable authoritarian regimes is they label non violent protestors 'terrorists'."

I'll have a crack at that.

What makes a terrorist a terrorist?
- The acts themselves, or the 'end justifies the means' mentality that leads them to do whatever they do?

I'd argue that by mentality alone, and a willingness to deliberately break laws and hold others ransom to their beliefs and actions (in the acts of shutting down roads and cities) these people exhibit an 'end justifies the means' mentality in their actions.

It's closer to the mind of a terrorist than a normal sane person.

And they're not just 'non-violent protesters'
"Stand over there off the road in the park where other people aren't inconvenienced in the going about of their lives".

No, they can't do that can they, they deliberately set out to disrupt society and don't care if people can't pick up their kids, or if people die in ambulances stuck in traffic from road closures.

I'm not against doing things that are better for the environment but I won't support cutting ones nose off to spite the face.

These people aren't interested in creative ingenuity and a rational path to achieving a world that's better for the environment, they just want to take us back to the stone-age.

- And it's other people that suffer, not these middle class university retards who found a cause to champion to give their lives purpose.

I'd be willing to bet that just like the elites, their carbon footprint is much bigger than average peoples.

Recently they parked a car across a freeway to block traffic and across train tracks to block trains.
Interesting that they were petrol powered cars the hypocritical morons.
- They had to burn fuel in order to make their protest.
They're idiots.

If they REALLY cared about the environment, they wouldn't be letting 200k+ people into our country every year when we already import water.

"If they REALLY cared about the environment"

Will people ever realise that politicians 'really care' only about themselves and their overpaid jobs. It's the job they care about, hanging onto it, and retiring on a massive pension, plus a sinecure with China or some other crooked local mob.

Politicians in the 21st. Century are not nice or good people. That sort died out years ago.

Your take on politicians ttbn is cynical, just as most of your other opinions posted here are rather cynical. I do understand the belief you placed in the "great white hope" the coming messiah, Corny Banana, it was a false hope, and you landed on your arse with that one, most unfortunate on your part, but no need to be so negative, I say move on. The vast majority of politicians of all persuasions are reasonable people, with good intentions, even your new love Pauline, misguided as she is, dangerous yes, but she has a true belief in what she stands for, not always realised, but genuine.

The media is not interested in covering peaceful,
well-behaved protests. That's the truth of the matter.
They want action - because that's what sells newspapers.
I've been to heard journalists themselves saying - "Lets
go - nothing's happening here."

But if you grabbed a police officer off his horse - hit him
with your placard - you'd get your photo in the next day's
newspaper. It you stood there quietly and politely - it
would be a case of - "Nothings happening here!"

I found with my kids that the best way to handle a tantrum was to ignore it or mock it....but never react to it. They soon learned that it wasn't the path to getting what they wanted.

When the 'Stop the oil' (or the stop whatever we don't like) protestors went for the the VW plant in Germany they got that treatment. They were ignored. At the end of the business day, they just closed up, turned off the lights and air-con and locked up. Occasionally security would check them by flashing torches at them in the dark. They requested bowls for urination and defecation but we ignored. They claimed to be on a hunger strike but complained they couldn't get any food. Other than that they were allowed to remain with their hands glued to the floor....and ignored.

After 42 hours they were arrested. That's how you treat a tantrum.

That may work on some but as somebody raised it in
this discussion - what do you do when they glue themselves to
a valuable work of art? Run the risk of seeing it destroyed
by ignoring the action? Or what if they really are destroying
valuable property, heritage items, statues, et cetera. Some
things you can't just ignore.

The only violence I have witnessed at a protest, and I've been to a few, was during the Vietnam War moratoriums in Sydney. Coppers would remove their badges then wade into the protesters, and drag young girls by their hair, throwing them into the backs of paddy wagons, assisted at times by Neo-Nazis . Protesters would be charged such crimes as "assaulting police". Now who were the criminals then?

Hi Paul,

I've never witnessed any bad police action - I'm
relieved to say. And I also have been to quite
a few protests - mainly with a "Ruskie Go Home!"
political theme regarding the Baltic States.
However all of these protests were peaceful and
well behaved - and of no threat to anybody. Perhaps
if they would have been more vocal - they would have
received better coverage in the newspapers.

Hi Foxy,

These days at protests the police are generally well behaved and not a menace to peace loving people. Attacking young girls, dragging them away by their hair, seems to be a thing of the past. At the 'Invasion Day' protests which are well organised with police consultation beforehand, things run smoothly. One I attended there was obviously at least one "agent provocateur" in the crowd, trying to stir things up, he looked out of place and was ignored by those around him.

We knew the way to handle the Vietnam War protesters at Sydney Uni. The engineering students were dismayed at the ratbags from the so called humanities, & donated many eggs to their cause. Did you get egged Paul?

Hassy,

The vast majority of students at Sydney Uni we against the war, of course there were a few Nazi's wanting to assault people. How many did you assault Hassy? Egging others shows what ratbags will do, it carries a charge of common assault. BTW, by any chance did you bomb innocent women and children in your 'Sopwith Camel'. Do you still favour the annihilation of 200 million Pakistani's with nuclear bombs as you once called for on this forum? What was it, yes "Get them before they get us". Well of course you shy away from answering that question these days, ashamed as you are.

The vast majority of students at Sydney Uni we against the war,
Paul1405,
But they are they helping to cause it, by their lack of sense ! Parasitism is a major component on the roads to war !

Here is one giving a well reasoned explanation of her conduct:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bumKlEoGhvk

All well and good if you know you are correct, but how can you ever know that? Plenty of people are certain they are correct about all sorts of things, like pumped hydro, the international electricity superhighway, or even cheap as chips Thorium power, but without proof of concept they are but grains of sand in the great sandpit of fairy tale solutions. It might be uneconomic to power Europe with renewable energy cabled from Africa, but hey, a world wide renewable power grid? Totally doable! Like Jules Assange's good humanitarian mate Vlad, when facts start to get in the way it's time to double down with the fairy tales.

Only lunatics are not 'against war'. Who is going to stop the lunatics like the Chinese Communists, whose leader has publicly told the Red Army to "prepare for war"? Who do the likes of Paul 1405 think are going to protect them. Where does Paul 1405 think he is going to run to? There will be no escape from this island if it is attacked. No hopping across a land border. There will be no fuel getting in. No goods that we no longer make. No medicines. If anyone at all escapes, it will be the rotten politicians who have neglected our defence since WWII, and who are still refusing to prepare by increasing troops and equipment, and leaving us virtually defenceless.

Australia in 2022 is more vulnerable to capture or destruction than any Western nation in living memory, except for New Zealand. American failures of leadership and judgment are emerging as serious threats to Australia’s future because we cannot defend ourselves without them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bumKlEoGhvk
Fester,
A perfect example of the ill-effects by indoctrination. We all know the cause of Climate change, Climate Change ! We can be quite certain that pollution adds to climatic woes & we also know that consumerism & greed & selfishness i.e. all from the same basket, are exaggerating the otherwise quite natural changes. Gits like this Pommie Sheilah are so indoctrinated that they don't even realise that they're part of the causing the problem instead of solving it !
They'd change their minds in a flash if they were to be made to survive on their merits instead of idiotic bureaudroids providing them with too great a share of our Tax Dollars !

Hi Indyvidual,

I think her an example of the consequences of believing that your opinion is an absolute truth. Science is about eliminating assumptions as a means to better understanding the world. Presenting long range forecasts using many estimations and assumptions as justification for radically changing the world would seem to be the antithesis of science.

Cheers

Hi ttbn,

Looking at the the Ukraine war, I think that Xi would realise that if China invaded Taiwan, western democracies would be unlikely to passively watch from the sidelines. However, if Xi decided to take some historically Chinese territory back from Russia, I think that he could do so with impunity. Xi will probably do as much when the Russians are driven from Ukraine.

China will face some serious demographic challenges over the coming decades which might challenge Xi's plans for conquest

Science is about eliminating assumptions as a means to better understanding the world.
Fester,
When science gets it right occasionally all is good however, on the countless occasion when the professional guessers (scientists) are way off the mark yet not willing to concede failure, it then becomes the unaffordable mess of Govt or rather Taxpayer funded wasting of Dollars.
I'm pro science however, I draw the line at funding being thrown at science without any questioning of the validity of results. yes, by all means do scientific studies/experimentations it after all, is the only way to find solutions. But, here comes that damned inconvenient but, scientists should not be paid top Dollars until they discover something of value to society. Until they do they should be paid like any other everyday Public Servant. Scientists aren't all whizz kids & only a few lucky guessers discover something worthwhile by accident after others have already laid down the foundations !.

TTBN - I understand you'd prefer NOT to have my support in the Forum. Nevertheless if you add an opinion, and I agree with that opinion, I will give my support come what may, okay.

The last two comments you made herein are correct in my opinion. This massive island of ours, with its thousands of kms of largely uninhabited coast lines, couldn't possible defend itself from a military attack, of any size.

Sure we have the ADF, but as good as they are, their combined strength, both permanent and reservist's I suspect, wouldn't reach 100k. Whereas the Chinese Military numbers stretch into the millions. And we shouldn't discount the strength or size of their reserves either.

Of course I have no precise figures, but given the current intimidatory appetite that seems to prevail within Beijing, you can bet your socks they've increased their numbers exponentially, including their military assets & hardware, together with their overall technology, which is far above that of our ADF., being a nuclear nation.

Before Climate change, we must be in a position to defend ourselves. Otherwise the climate itself will become inconsequential.

Fester

Western democracies are passive about everything these days. Don't put money on them doing anything. Western civilisation is on the downhill run.

Australia, for instance, can't defend itself, let alone other countries. Taiwan is more ready and able than we are.

I am sympathetic to your wishful thinking though.

OSW,

I love your support. I just didn't want to be mentioned in the same breath as Foxy and SteeleRedux. That's all. They are my exact opposites. But you see something in them that I don't. Fair enough.

On the matter of defence, I believe that most Australians don't have a clue how puny we are - if they do think about it, that is.

My reading and observations suggest that we are in a worse state than we were prior to WW11. The only one who seems to have a clue among the political class is General, now Senator, Jim Molan; and too many of the Liberal Party pansies didn't want him on the ticket. Dutton, a tough Defence Minister, is a waste of space as Opposition Leader.

Australians should be afraid; very afraid. If China runs amok, the resulting war won't be like sending a few soldiers to cop it, as happened in Vietnam and the Middle. East, while it was life as usual at home; Australian civilians will be involved, ready or not.

The pathway to peace is through diplomacy, not militarism and sabre-rattling as those living in a fantasy world of 50 years ago would have it. Albanese is trying to build bridges with China through dialog, something the Coalition under Morrison destroyed. Its not a matter of grovelling and cow tailing as we have done with America, but establishing mutual respect through partnerships.

There will be no shift in the relationship between Australia as long as Xi is the President. Xi is a second Mao, who has exhorted the Chinese to "prepare for war". If he does get to speak to Xi, Albanese, who isn't sure that he will even get a look in, will get eaten alive, the whiny little embarrassment to Australia that he is.

Albanese would be better off, short of resigning, to stay home and concentrate on preparations for war, too. That's the only thing that will make Xi think twice.

The pathway to peace is through diplomacy,
Paul1405,
When & where has Diplomacy ever produced more than a generation (33yrs)-long peaceful solution ?
Admittedly, handing over the proceeds from working people by Diplomats (foreign aid) to appease stroppy Nations occasionally holds up conflicts for a while but only for so long !
In my book squandering the money taken from excessively taxed workers & giving it to undeserving politicians in other countries does not constitute Diplomacy, there are more apt description for that !

Armchair,
>What makes a terrorist a terrorist?
>- The acts themselves, or the 'end justifies the means' mentality that leads them to do whatever they do?

Definitely the acts themselves. The attitude that the ends can justify the means is very common with humans, and on this board there was overwhelming condemnation of one person who took the view that it never did.

Fortunately most people take a different view when killing is involved, so terrorists don't get much support.

Some people may argue about where the boundaries between terrorism, sabotage and publicity stunts lie, but it's very clear that they're three very different things.

Parking cars across rail tracks definitely falls into the sabotage category, but it's not something I'd heard of. Do you have a news reference?

>If they REALLY cared about the environment, they wouldn't be letting 200k+
>people into our country every year when we already import water.

What a ridiculous claim! We, like most rich countries, import a small amount of premium branded bottled water because a few people with more money than sense like to drink it, but it's of little relevance. Money's a bigger limiting factor to what we produce than water is. And we're already well past the point where controlling population alone can ever solve the problem. But we're nowhere near the point where the population is too large to prevent the problems being solved.

We have what it take to be environmentally sustainable as a nation, but many people don't want that. Fortunately the generation most opposef are dying off.

___________________________________________________________________________

Fester,
You may not have noticed, but power grids across the world are already linking up. AIUI the supergrid currently stretches from Singapore to Europe (via Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, China and Russia).

___________________________________________________________________________

Indy,
The problem isn't questioning the results; it's people assuming they know something the experts don't that invalidates the results.

___________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Taiwan prepared for war because it has to; China has expressed a desire to annex Taiwan, but has no territorial ambitions in Australia.
No country would gain more than it loses from invading Australia.

people assuming they know something the experts don't that invalidates the results.
Aidan,
So, where were those experts' right then in your opinion ? Got any examples of such success ?

Indy

Aidan is just a naysayer, with nothing much to say. Much of the time what he does say is senseless or irrelevant to the subject.

Got it, TTBN...

You got to remember I'm a slow learner with an even lower IQ. But at the risk of repeating myself for others herein - Until and unless we dramatically increase the military strike capacity and strength of our armed services, issues like Climate Change or anything else will simply remain moot.

Forget about purchasing nuclear subs - Lease the same from the US, ASAP! And in so doing, going someway into defending our vast coastline against intruders. I'm positive the United States would be amenable to such a scheme and more than pleased to see Australia shouldering at least part of their own defence responsibility without completely relying on them (the US) for defence.

o sung wu

Yes. We don’t need to repeat the Collins experiment, which was more about job creation than defence.

As if the USA would help defend Australia if China had a go, jeez !
Look how they help Ukraine ?
There's nothing to worry about China until they successfully take back Taiwan !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGTjKJHu99c