The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Greenpeace  (Read 4616 times)

Offline Ben6789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
  • And then there were none.
    • View Profile
Greenpeace
« on: 04/04/2007 16:44:47 »
My science teacher taught me about Greenpeace and the things they do. I admire that volunteers are willing to risk their lives for their planet...but then he told me they may be involved in bombings. Bombings is radical for me, too radical. So it saddens me that I must list Greenpeace as "radicalists".

But I laugh whenever I see the picture in my science book that shows a tiny green peace boat holding a small sign that says, "STOP" on it and floating in front of a giant Japanese whaling ship. That takes guts. But bombings are too far. [V]


 

another_someone

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #1 on: 04/04/2007 17:21:55 »
I have moved this topic to 'Chat' because, although Greenpeace is a political organisation that claims Environmental credentials, the question seems more to do with the nature of greenpeace as an organisation, rather than more general Environmental questions (some of which might have been raised by Greenpeace, but are nonetheless questions in their own right, whomsoever might have raised them).

 

another_someone

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #2 on: 04/04/2007 17:27:07 »
There have been 'Environmentalists' (it is open to opinion whether everybody who labels themselves as an 'Environmentalist' actually believes the same thing, or would be recognised by another 'Environmentalist' as such - but that is the nature of all politics) who have committed various acts of violence, and who probably did include bombings; but I am not aware of Greenpeace, as an organisation ever sanctioning such action.

Greenpeace have often got their facts wrong, have often distorted facts, and have often caused damage to property; but I am not aware of any case where they have deliberately threatened human life.

Conversely, Greenpeace themselves been the victims of a bomb attack believed to have been instigated by the French Secret Service.

I am no fan of Greenpeace, but let's not blame them for things they have not actually done.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2007 17:30:18 by another_someone »
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Greenpeace
« Reply #3 on: 04/04/2007 18:14:02 »
Are Greenpeace proven to be responsible for bombings? or is it just "alleged" as there is a vast difference.

People sometimes resort to radical means to get noticed as that is the only way they feel that they WILL get noticed. Governments are destroyers of life, they go to war, kill, bomb and maim innocent people and yet the same governments are not classed as radicalists.

Nelson Mandela was a radicalist and fought for black freedom and equality but part of that (ANC) fight also included bombings and killings in the name of the cause. Yet Mandela is now classed as a hero by most and the bombing accepted as part of the struggle.

I am not a member or supporter of Greenpeace and don't agree with some of the things they do but do admit that they have highlighted some important ecological issues. I nor many others would not had known about the radiation leaks and possible health risks at nuclear power plants if not for Greenpeace. Governments have a habit of covering things like that up and "radical" organisations have a habit of revealing some of the buried truth.

TMM
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #4 on: 04/04/2007 18:30:26 »
Governments have a habit of covering things like that up and "radical" organisations have a habit of revealing some of the buried truth.

Greenpeace (as any Environmental group) is a political entity - as such, it will be just as willing to cover up inconvenient truths, and expose those truths that support its case.

That you have different groups, each willing to expose the untruths of the other, will help increase the likelihood that the truth will emerge from one group or the other; but neither side is either white nor black, just shades of grey.
 

Offline Ben6789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
  • And then there were none.
    • View Profile
Greenpeace
« Reply #5 on: 04/04/2007 20:11:01 »
Whenever I see a picture of Greenpeace actions in my science book, I realize that they won. They met their goal.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #6 on: 04/04/2007 21:16:26 »
Whenever I see a picture of Greenpeace actions in my science book, I realize that they won. They met their goal.

Won what?

The trouble with political organisations like Greenpeace is that their raison d'etre is the struggle, not the victory.  If they ever succeed, they have no more need to exist - and they do still exist (and have every intention of existing for some time to come).

This is not to say that organisations like that have not changed the political landscape (although there were 'Environmentalists' (although they did not call themselves that) even back in the 19th century) - but I am not sure what you mean by victory - the moment they can proclaim outright victory, they cannot justify their continued existence.
« Last Edit: 04/04/2007 21:18:59 by another_someone »
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #7 on: 05/04/2007 10:02:17 »
Nelson Mandela was a radicalist and fought for black freedom and equality but part of that (ANC) fight also included bombings and killings in the name of the cause. Yet Mandela is now classed as a hero by most and the bombing accepted as part of the struggle.


Personall, i do not class Mandela as a hero. he was a terrorist and was responsible for the bombings and other atrocities carried out by the ANC. It really annoys me when he is paraded as a man to be respected and looked up to.

I also get a bit miffed when i see students wearing their Che Guevara t-shirts.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #8 on: 05/04/2007 17:48:53 »
Personall, i do not class Mandela as a hero. he was a terrorist and was responsible for the bombings and other atrocities carried out by the ANC. It really annoys me when he is paraded as a man to be respected and looked up to.

I also get a bit miffed when i see students wearing their Che Guevara t-shirts.

The trouble is that your comments would apply equally to the father of almost any nation - whether it is George Washington, most of the early leaders of Israel or Ireland, or pretty much any nation (with only a very small minority of exceptions).

What Mandela can be comended for is not what he did (and supported) during the years of violence; but the way he lead his country away from the path of vengeance and bitterness over its history in the years when the violence had ceased (this is in marked contrast to the show trials currently being undertaken in Iraq).
 

Offline Biology Guy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Greenpeace
« Reply #9 on: 05/04/2007 18:21:36 »
plus you can't forget that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (or something to that effect)
« Last Edit: 05/04/2007 18:24:44 by Biology Guy »
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #10 on: 05/04/2007 21:10:36 »

The trouble is that your comments would apply equally to the father of almost any nation - whether it is George Washington, most of the early leaders of Israel or Ireland, or pretty much any nation (with only a very small minority of exceptions).

What Mandela can be comended for is not what he did (and supported) during the years of violence; but the way he lead his country away from the path of vengeance and bitterness over its history in the years when the violence had ceased (this is in marked contrast to the show trials currently being undertaken in Iraq).

well, i am not going to be drawn in to a discussion of personal opinions. We have our own and they will not be changed, questioned maybe.

what i will say is that George Washington and Nelson Mandela are in now way the same. Washington engaged in open warfare, whereas Mandela used terrorism. planting bombs in shopping centres and massacres. they are not the same, does the end justify the means? Not in my book.

And as for the actions of his loathsome wife, all with the knowledge of the ANC...Yes Mandela distanced himself from her up on his release, but was this because he was appalled by her actions? or because he had to politically?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #11 on: 06/04/2007 00:27:34 »
what i will say is that George Washington and Nelson Mandela are in now way the same. Washington engaged in open warfare, whereas Mandela used terrorism. planting bombs in shopping centres and massacres. they are not the same, does the end justify the means? Not in my book.

Are you talking about Mandela, or the ANC (who broadened their operations substantially subsequent to Mandela going to jail).

Yes, Mandela was a terrorist, and it is for that reason that Mandela never obtained the support of Amnesty International (something that I commend Amnesty for). But in the years when he was free, I am only aware of economic targets (power pylons, etc.), not direct personal targets; but he was there very much at the beginning of the ANC, not in the later years.

The distinction you make with George Washington is one of technology (there were no shopping centres, and there were no bombs but I do believe that each side persecuted civilian sympathisers of the other side).

George Washington was actually condemned for not fighting in open warfare, but resorting to hist and run tactics which was seen in the time as cowardly (today we would just regard this as modern warfare but even today, we see George Bush claiming the Taliban are not legitimate soldiers, and thus not protected by the Geneva Conventions, because they do not wear legitimate uniforms, and are not under the command of a recognised Government).

And as for the actions of his loathsome wife, all with the knowledge of the ANC...Yes Mandela distanced himself from her up on his release, but was this because he was appalled by her actions? or because he had to politically?

I rather suspect he felt betrayed by her but we can never know.
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #12 on: 06/04/2007 10:03:48 »

Are you talking about Mandela, or the ANC (who broadened their operations substantially subsequent to Mandela going to jail).


The ANC did indeed broaden their operations after Mandela was sent to Robben Island, but before that Mandela was part of the MK, the military wing of the ANC.

according to his biography:

Quote
When the ANC was banned after the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, he (Mandela) was detained until 1961 when he went underground to lead a campaign for a new national convention.

Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the ANC, was born the same year. Under his leadership it launched a campaign of sabotage against government and economic installations.

In 1962 Mandela left the country for military training in Algeria and to arrange training for other MK members.


Quote
...It was during this time that he, together with other leaders of the ANC constituted a new specialised section of the liberation movement, Umkhonto we Sizwe, as an armed nucleus with a view to preparing for armed struggle. At the Rivonia trial, Mandela explained : "At the beginning of June 1961, after long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

he may have started out with "good intentions" to only attack economic targets, but it soon escalated.


Yes, Mandela was a terrorist, and it is for that reason that Mandela never obtained the support of Amnesty International (something that I commend Amnesty for).


i agree 100% with you there George.


But in the years when he was free, I am only aware of economic targets (power pylons, etc.), not direct personal targets; but he was there very much at the beginning of the ANC, not in the later years.


he was the commander in chief of the MK, so should be held responsible for whatever action they took.


George Washington was actually condemned for not fighting in open warfare, but resorting to hist and run tactics which was seen in the time as cowardly (today we would just regard this as modern warfare but even today, we see George Bush claiming the Taliban are not legitimate soldiers, and thus not protected by the Geneva Conventions, because they do not wear legitimate uniforms, and are not under the command of a recognised Government).

But the armies under Washington did wear a uniform, he also engaged the British in 9 major battles, and lets not forget he was allied by the French...puh, and also engaged in naval battles and blockades.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Greenpeace
« Reply #13 on: 06/04/2007 11:13:51 »
But the armies under Washington did wear a uniform, he also engaged the British in 9 major battles, and lets not forget he was allied by the French...puh, and also engaged in naval battles and blockades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Quote
When the war began, the Americans did not have a professional army or navy. Each colony provided for its own defenses through the use of local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, slightly trained, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of regular soldiers but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops as at the battles of Lexington, Bunker Hill, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston. Both sides used partisan warfare but the Americans were particularly effective at suppressing Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.

After an American victory at Saratoga in 1777, France, with Spain and the Netherlands as its allies, entered the war against Britain. French involvement proved decisive, with a French naval victory in the Chesapeake leading to the surrender of a British army at Yorktown in 1781.

I believe that most of the Spanish support was probably financial.  Ofcourse, Spain had not anticipated that the newly formed United States of America would later go and invade her territories on the continent.

Both sides also used Native Americans, although in that respect, a greater number of the tribes supported the British, since British rule was inevitably confined to the coastal regions and would present less of a future threat of inland incursions into native territories.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2007 11:22:02 by another_someone »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Greenpeace
« Reply #13 on: 06/04/2007 11:13:51 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length