What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
181 Comments
- fentanyl, on 09/11/2008, -6/+103Vandalism != Terrorism
Definition of terrorism from the OS X Dictionary: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
FTA: Five of the six activists scaled the plant’s 650-foot smokestack in October last year to paint “Gordon” on the exterior wall.
Graffitists are 'terrorists' now? - Gherald, on 09/11/2008, -4/+85Ugh, no way is painting a smokestack "terrorism". This word is _terribly_ abused.
- spocksbrain, on 09/11/2008, -23/+57I really hate Greenpeace. I always think of Greenpeace when I let off a big methane fart.
- BigManOnCampus, on 09/12/2008, -7/+36They trespassed. That's the case, they trespassed and were let off with nothing because of their cause.
Now, the next time someone intends to break into a power plant in the UK, maybe the security will be a little less enthusiastic about apprehending them seeing as how there is no penalty for violating private property if your goal is environmentalism. Of course the next time they might be intent on sabotaging it. Welcome to the dark ages. - Hetman, on 09/11/2008, -30/+58lol the U.K is fuked, I cannot wait until peta starts moving into butcher houses stoping the supply of meat. Or people start picketing wind mills because they are causing extinction of large birds. Or people start chaining themselfs to nuclear plants. Or people stop the production of solar panals because of how much toxic materials are produced making them. So basically the court was saying that anyone can technically shut down anything they find offensive to the enviroment. That was completly dumb on their part.
- Ymeg, on 09/12/2008, -6/+29Damaging property is not "civil" disobedience. It is ***** vandalism.
- davidryal, on 09/11/2008, -3/+24I think their point in using quotes around eco-terrorism is to point out that what greenpeace does isn't really terrorism, even though it gets called that all the time.
- inactive, on 09/11/2008, -3/+21Wow. Reading the blurb + headline confused the heck out of me. I guess this makes sense, though!
- bostmaguy, on 09/11/2008, -10/+24The jury came back with a 'not guilty,' and one of the jurists said it was in part because of James Hansen's testimony speaking on behalf of the eco-vandals. That would be the NASA's Hansen, flying to the UK, to defend 6 people who caused $50,000 in damage.
"What's disturbing is that Hansen, in direct violation of NASA's code of ethics posted on NASA's Office of General Council webpage, would actually defend persons who admit their guilt. From the Goddard Institute for Space Studies web page:
GISS is a component laboratory of Goddard Space Flight Center’s Earth Sciences Division, which is part of GSFC's Sciences and Exploration Directorate. Thus Hansen falls under these ethics rules.
Specifically, Dr. Hansen's defense of vandalism in the name of a cause he believes in fails under the NASA Misuse of position rule. If he received compensation of any kind, such as airfare, rooms, board etc. to appear as a NASA expert, he would also be breaking other NASA conduct rules."
And if you don't believe the crazier whackos of the green movement won't use this to justify more and dangerous damage, wake up. They've been waiting for jury nullification and now they have it. I'd like to see the jurors' faces when they have no heat this winter in their homes because activists they set free have sabotaged a power plant. - roger14, on 09/11/2008, -15/+27Hetman, I think you are missing the point. Experts provided testimony that linked the coal power plant to environmental damage that the coal power plant has no intention of fixing. Who exactly are the terrorists here? People trying to save the environment and the planet vs. governments and corporations who are killing our environment and planet for profit?
certainly, though, this ruling seems to open up a huge can of worms! There is bound to be a big mess as a result. But somehow we have to stop the corporate/governmental status quo that allows the continued attack on our environment.
- barkus, on 09/12/2008, -0/+11So all they did was paint "Gordon" on a smokestack? That's hardly terrorism. Eco-vandalism is more like it.
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -4/+14Spaz, I'm pretty sure than a guy who faces down whalers armed with automatic weapons isn't going to be impressed by a fat RNC employee with cheetos stained fingers.
- JoshuaGross, on 09/12/2008, -3/+13Mine are carbon monoxide - the silent killer.
- spyd3rweb, on 09/12/2008, -9/+19Why don't they go vandalize a volcano or something, they emit lots of CO2.
- inactive, on 09/11/2008, -1/+10Hard to say what the intent was from the story. All it says is "charges stemming from what the activists said was an attempt to shut down a coal-fired power plant." Maybe they got caught before they could do more than just paint "Gordon"?
"Greenpeace has been variously criticized for being too radical (or alarmist), too mainstream (or not alarmist enough), for allegedly using methods bordering on eco-terrorism..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Criticism
In any case, I think the real story is the precedent this could set for other similar actions. - floorman56, on 09/12/2008, -1/+10So when I burn your car because it is emitting CO2 ..Thats going to be OK with you right?
- Ceaser57, on 09/12/2008, -3/+12Terrorist = the new communist
Cold Wars are great for muting dissenters. - Hetman, on 09/11/2008, -1/+9I would do it by electing political leaders that care about the enviroment. I do not know exactly how your democracy works, but that seems the solution to me. Allowing individuals to determine what is enviromentally good or enviromentally bad is not the way to go about it. As you mentioned it opens a huge can of worms because everyone has a different idea of what is good or bad for the enviroment.
- Hetman, on 09/11/2008, -8/+16I never said it was terrorism did you not read my post? I said they have set a precedent were any group of people who find something wrong with a company can legally vandalize and try to shut down the company with out being held legally responsible for their actions I did not even mention the word terrorism. If you allow anyone who believes they are trying to save the enviroment off you are going to have a lot of problems on your hand. And if I was you I would be more concerned about the amount of pollution China will soon be producing and not so much about America.
- inactive, on 09/12/2008, -2/+9sorry retard, no matter how bad something is or is proven to be as such, you have no right to disrupt it without legal precedent.
simple as that.
this was vandalism....ATLEAST - absurdist, on 09/12/2008, -7/+14Oh please do, Jimmy. PLEASE do. Hell, I'll take up a collection to see you go play tough guy against the Greenpeace and Earth First folks. Can't say we'll miss you on dig once they chew you up and ***** you out, but it'll still be fun to hear about.
- JulyZerg, on 09/12/2008, -1/+8Everyone who goes against the government is a "terrorist" nowadays...
- adnk283, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7This has happened before, in 1999, so maybe it's not so 'epic.'
"In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c ... - Bob042, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8Vandalism is not sabotage or destruction, which makes the description a bit misleading. However, the environmental impact of the target hardly makes trespassing or any other crime legal! Does this mean I can go to the UK and start painting any Hummers I see? Maybe I'll go write nasty words on people's houses that don't have CFLs installed.
- BlackFred, on 09/12/2008, -6/+12So I assume all of you would accept the deaths that could occur as the result of this action as acceptable. I'm assuming that the electricity being generated by this plant was needed and if this shutdown caused a failure in the grid along with deaths that would be acceptable?
. - Gherald, on 09/11/2008, -1/+7I wasn't dissing the blog post, rather the abuse of the word in general. It's gotten pretty bad around here, today of all days.
- rbk303, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7Yes. Yes they are. So are satirists, writers, comedians, journalists, painters, sculptors and philosophers. We have no sense of humor. These things are NOT funny. POW, lipstick, 9/11.
- fuse13, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8How many people were attacked or killed in this protest? How much "terror" was generated? Im afraid the right has been busy extending the definition to cover ideological opponents as well as actual terrorists, and this is undermining the real fight. Terrorists are terrorists. Using it as a catch all term is dumb and if you do it you are also dumb.
All that said, they should have been charged with vandalism or something. This decision seems quite wrong. - inactive, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7American right winger, huh?
- fuse13, on 09/12/2008, -1/+7@absurdist. I dont think you get it. Just because it isnt terrorism doesnt mean it isnt something else.
- fuse13, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6@coolkid11. Im no fan of Sharia but you are making up most of that sharia stuff. If you are going to rail against something, get a litte bit educated about it or you come off as a hick.
- Digger1123, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6I guess I am a terrorist because I drive a car that theoretically damages the environment, and I don't plan on changing that anytime soon.
- warriorscot, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6I agree greenpeace can act like utter pratts most of the time.
I really love winding up the enviro-zealots, the ban this, tax that lot. They don't realise the implications of what they ask and harangue anyone who tries to achieve the same goals but from a little less extreme direction. I love it when you point out that if everybody did what they wanted we could have billions of deaths and they say its nature yet when you volunteer the point that if we just kill off a few billion people we wouldn't have to change anything at all they go nuts.
There are some good people at greenpeace but there are just as many nutters that bring the whole bunch down. They all believe you have to move the mountain to the people when what you should do is move the people to the mountain. - BlackFred, on 09/12/2008, -3/+8Obviously you must be a scientist that's recently found "proof" of global warming. The only evidence of mans role in global is a bunch of poorly written and inaccurate computer models.
I find it likely, but by no means proven, that man is causing global warming through one mechanism or another, but despite protests such as this I sincerely doubt that the world will quit burning carbon fuel anytime soon. Most scientists, and I do mean true global warming cool aid drinkers will still tell you that destroying global economies in order to prevent global warming is more harmful than global warming itself.
Before we go full tilt into shutting down power plants that emit co2 we should at least make some informed decisions.
First is man causing global warming, it's going to take more than computer models as proof.
Second if man is causing global warming is it really co2 that's the underlying mechanism. co2 is a relatively week greenhouse gas and it is measured in parts per million in the earths atmosphere(check wikipedia if you don't believe this)
Third if it is co2 and not methane releases or deforestation or some other cause will the effects be bad enough to make the changes required. Currently the best we could do would be to replace fossil fuels with a bundle of renewables and possibly lower standards of living world wide. The net effect of global warming might actually be a good thing. Certain areas would lose out others would gain.
The primary sources of energy that are not fossil fuel based all have significant problems.
Solar -- requires large tracts of land and disturbs the environment.Far more expensive than coal.
Wind -- Kills wildlife to a greater or lesser extent, ruins natural views and environments.
Geothermal -- despite improvements still not suitable for most areas.
Biomass -- takes up land that could be used for crops or wildlife.
Hydroelectric -- releases methane and changes the environment.
Nuclear -- Waste issues and fusion is not yet viable.
Efficiency -- won't meet goals and would require dictatorships to be effective.
WARNING -- positive comments on this post will most likely get dugg down. - inactive, on 09/12/2008, -3/+8This definitely is a remarkable move.
- ZenMojo, on 09/12/2008, -3/+8That's assuming that the grid was running at peak 24/7 and the hospitals don't have generators and that they would be the first to power down when a single coal plant goes down.
Frankly, that's just ***** absurd. The standard is "foreseeable consequence," and since it's unlikely that everyone on life support would suddenly die in a power outage, you're barking up the wrong damn tree with that one. - fuse13, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7@BlackFred. Look, the thing is that your post was dumb. Sorry!
The whole point is that it was vandalism, nobody was hurt, nobody died, no power was shut down. Many people agree that this is not Terrorism, it is old fashioned criminal behaviour. They were trying to GET IT SHUT DOWN, not sending in some hippy James Bond's or something to actually shut it down on the spot, as some people seem to be implying.
Then you decide to tell the people who disagree with you what they would think in a hypothetical situation... "I bet you would support them if some kittens had been raped as a result of their actions!!! OMG!!!" Errr.. no, actually. If people had died due to deliberate intent then you probably have Terrorism. If someone had died accidentally then some kind of serious negligence or something. This is obvious.
Your strawman was clumsy and insulting, and indicates you arent making any real arguments on the actual case, you just kinda dont like Greanpeace, right? - inactive, on 09/12/2008, -5/+10Look like the First Earthers are gonna start crawling out of the "woodwork" soon.
- RetlawST, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Hetman, had they charged them with Vandalism, the charges likely would have stuck. Instead, they chose to prosecute them as ecoterrorists. I'm not so worried about the environmental loonies as I am the asshats in government who are so keen on labeling everybody a terrorist.
- Dragular, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6How about we start spraypainting some green peace members? After all, their lungs are emitting CO2. it's not assault, it's civil disobedience!
- StaticThunder, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6Hey, he's not fat, he's just big boned!
- ZenMojo, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Someone hide the Jews, they're always the first ones we go after.
Although now it's the Muslims. Eh, whatever, they're all Semitic peoples. Who wants the bunk in my attic? - JoshuaGross, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Stop terrorizing me with your opinions!
- 007brendan, on 09/12/2008, -4/+8That logic makes perfect sense to me. Basically, it's saying that you can break the law if YOU deem that the ends justify the means, however illegal they may be.
- AFelsinger, on 09/11/2008, -2/+6Exactly, David.
- JoshuaGross, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Terrorism: violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear
Vandalism: destroying or damaging, or attempting to destroy or damage, the property of another without the owner’s consent, or public property, except by burning - knyghtryda, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Coal plant is dumb... greenpeace is dumb, and the jury was really dumb. Vandalism isn't a very good way of getting your message across, and calling vandalism "terrorism" isn't exactly being truthful about the ruling. All parties are at fault here.
- PeppermintPig, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Perhaps someone will come by and spraypaint your car. I mean, it doesn't effect how it drives, so you should be fine with that.
- Spartycus, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3Anonymous1986, If all CO2 is a problem, then everyone needs to cut down on their production of it. If it is a problem, then we cant wait for the developing world to get to the same level per capita as an industrialized nation. Hetman was right to say you have to consider China and India and any other developing nation. The thing is, they wont agree to not advancing anymore than we would be willing to give up easy transportation, microwaved meals, plastic packaging and air conditioning. The only solution if global warming is man made is to develop superior alternatives to burning fossil fuels...
- BlackFred, on 09/12/2008, -4/+7@fuse13
I assume the 13 is your age. I thought I would inject a little realism into the discussion the fact is that if this caused a power outage deaths would probably be the result. Street lights going out medical equipment not working along with a host of other unfortunate things that could happen.
If they wanted to shut down the plant there are far more responsible ways to do so that are not illegal by the way.
@Frozo
My comment didn't have the word TERROR anywhere in it, but since you mention it since my post was about deaths due to stupid actions by extremists I would say that kind of meets standards of terrorism. -
Show 51 - 100 of 183 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is