Welcome to Gaia! ::

Greenpeace is insane, but I think they get scary stuff noticed by the media, which then pressures the Powers That Be to fix it. I would NEVER send them money or join, and I'd dissuade anyone from doing so, because their actions are often illegal and always dangerous. But I silently admire the gutsy stuff they do because it does shine the spotlight on evil.

Just my two cents...
I think greenpeace had a good aim, that is helping the world to be "greener". Their aim sounds pretty good, aren't they?
Sadly, we could see that there are many extreme tree huggers inside the greenpeace. They might be getting too far in their actions, and that might be why some people think that the greenpeace was being terribly extreme.
I personally have some mates who volunteered in the greenpeace, and they are such a cool fellows. Sometimes, they told me that there were some extremists that would do anything to "save the world". More or less, these guys will mostly do some "drastic measurement" towards the "destroyers of the world".
I can't really generalise every single greenpeace members as terrorists, though some might act like one... Well, as for now... I am pretty sure that my mates who volunteered in greenpeace are nowhere near that extreme and I hope that they will bring the light to the extremists. My mates relied much more in persuasion and education rather than brute force.

I gotta agree not all of them are extreemists. But theres no denying the ones that are need to quit it. You cant claim to be sumone who whants to save life but willingly take life so easy.

Wich may I say is nuthing like the Mil. or cops or any other law inforcement as such. Thats there job and they are trained to only take life when necesary.

Extreemists are just crazy! You cut down my tree so im gona cut down your family and friends.... yea that makes perfictly good sens. Ironicly as I write this the people we are talking about are at the front gate of the base im at. There is yet another protest against the mil. today. I just hope I dont get called in on my day off for the riot team to have to stop them from doing sumthing stupid.

I kind of agree with this. I used to be a Greenpeace member in the late 70s. I went to rallies, handed out leaflets and did all the educational type things. I gave it up in the early 90s when things started to get a bit more confrontational.

So saying, I still think that the vast majority of Greenpeace members adhere to the non-violence part, it's just that with the advent of UTube and the likes it's easier for the extremists to get the notoriety they are after. Lets face it, a vid saying someone is going to burn a house down will get many more hits than one where someone is just sitting in a tree for three years.

I see the Greenpeace ships going up and down the river Forth when I'm back in Scotland occasionally. While I can't condone some of what they do, there's part of me that's glad. It gives me a feeling that at least there are still people who will get off their backsides to do something more than recycle plastics 1 & 2 while driving to work in their brand new Hummer ( and if that sounds a bit harsh, I live in Texas, I'm allowed to be jaded!).

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I consider an extremist to be someone who will go to any lengths, use any means, especially illegal ones, to achieve what they want. These people are so focused on their goals that they lose sight of everything else. Their actions are frequently in direct contradiction to their goals. Consider an abortion protester, who wants to save lives, and tries to do so by bombing clinics and/or taking lives.

My definition of a terrorist is fairly similar. I believe a terrorist is any person who attempts to achieve their goals by the application of fear. Suicide bombers, hijackers, hostage takers, gunmen, these are just the most well known sort.



You may very well be right, I have no idea if these two groups have ever been responsible for an actual death. But I don't consider it any better that all their violence has been directed at property. As far as I can see, it's another form of terrorism, albeit a milder form. There's still a threat there, a sabotaged piece of equipment may kill someone accidentally, and is it really such a long step from property destruction in pursuit of an ideal to murder in the same pursuit? Especially if someone is already unbalanced and frustrated at a lack of progress.



I don't know. Neither do you, unless you can see the future. And ask this question, how many deaths will occur as a result of extremism? Greenpeace and the ALF may not be responsible for any deaths, yet. How many other groups have killed?



I think there is a time and place for direct action, but it depends on the action. And it should be a last resort. Peaceful protests, changing and then enforcing laws, there are so many other ways, legal ways, of achieving a goal. Yes, it takes more time, yes, it's frustrating and yes, sometimes it seems impossible. That's because real change is hard. A group may get immediate results by bombing a building or sinking a ship or killing the person who offends them, then what? Attitudes are not changed, thinking processes are not altered and tomorrow another person will come along who will also offend the group. Should they just keep bombing and terrorizing and killing until there's no one left?



You know what they say about the road to hell...



Just out of curiosity, whose rights? When it comes to the kind of groups we've been talking about, defending one person's rights almost always means violating anothers. Who to defend? The bomber who says they have the right to protect the environment (the unborn child, the animals, whatever the cause may be) or the bomber's victims?

First, let me apologize if I implied that you were a violent person, that was not my intention. I'll also apologize if I lumped Greenpeace in the same category as bombers. I don't know much about Greenpeace specifically, and although the little I do know suggests to me that there are extremists within that group, I was trying to be more general. There are many groups with the same type of aims as Greenpeace, that do use violent ways to achieve them. Just as there are many organizations with different goals that use violence. Also, I do believe that within any type of organization, there are extremists, that is just human nature.

The point I was trying to make is that there are different ways for anyone who desires change, unfortunately some of these people choose violence and criminal activity first. Many people have said that working within the law never works, and sometimes it doesn't, that's very true. However, I've seen it time and time again where one person perseveres and wins through, it just takes longer.

I also said that sometimes it doesn't work. History has also proven that in these cases, revolution and violence is the way to win. But the other ways must be attempted first!

I did not mean to attack you personally when I asked about the rights. Some rights are more important than others, a corporations right to make profit is not as important as the right of another to live free and healthy. It's when violent ways are used to make a statement for an ideal, that's when I object. That person is violating another person's rights, sometimes the very right to live. confused Some of these situations are clear cut, others exist in a very gray area and that makes the whole issue so controversial. Who decides which person's rights are more important?

As I said in my last post, change is hard. It's hard to achieve and hard to adapt to it. But, in my opinion, it's better to work within the system, whenever possible even though it does seem impossible at times and it takes so long. I believe this because it's not just actions that have to be changed, it's attitudes. There is little in this world that is harder to change than human nature.

Back in the day I might have ventured to join such a group, but I've come to realize that virtually every group created to fight for such a cause will grow in the wrong directions eventually. Just look at the KKK. Few people know that the clan was actually created to watch over the families of soldiers at war. Sort of like a community watch that also helped with farmwork and other life problems. Then and extremist sect went anti-black, made headlines, and pretty soon that was all the group was known for, even if the majority were still good people doing good things.

There have been deaths caused by extremist sects of Greenpeace that I remember hearing of. They're a bit explosive-happy. Not sure about ALF, but PETA sure as hell has dirty hands. It's just not the safest thing to do. Having something like that show up in a background check is a red flag to law enforcement, future employers, colleges and the like. There are other ways to help protect what you fight for without sacrificing your rep.