Greenpeace

[AvilesC]

WARNING
WHAT YOUR READING IS A VERRY VERRY VERRY TOUCHY SUBJECT AND MUST BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. I CANOT STRESS HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO VEIW THIS NOT AS SUMTHING TO OVERANALIZE OR MAKE HARSH COMMENTS. WHY? BECAUSE THE ONLY ONES WHO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT IT IS THE ONES WHO DO IT.

Cupple of months ago I saw a video provided by a local law inforcement agency that was a copy of an actual Greenpeace recruitment/Initiation video....or summthing like that. There are alot of suporters of Greenpeace and alot of people against them. The major argument is are they terrorists? I canot say myself... The content of the video was majorly about a company using what they called "illigal lumber" and how they "fixed" them. There answer was burning down work sites....

Ok so thats a bit on the harsh activist taking things to far. but how about the fact that the worksit (homes beeing built) was in a rural wooded area. So if ther firebombs worked they would have burned down a good portion of trees...

That was my analasis. To me they seem like people who beleve in a worthy cause wether or not global warming is real but fight for it in all the wrong ways.

Whats your take on them?

Oh and incase summone asks why im asking. Its been bothering me lately after watching sum Greenpeace Youtube vids >.<  

[Taxi Mama]

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.  

[Kyreie]

I can't venture an opinion on Greenpeace specifically, I just don't know enough about it. What I will say is that a lot of these groups started out with good intentions, practices and ideals. Then, unfortunately, the extremists show up and turn it upside down and inside out. The group which started out trying to protect the environment, or whatever, turns into nothing more than a terrorist cell. It's a real shame because it casts a negative light on those who were really trying to make the world a better place for everyone.  

[Sir_Bors]

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.  

[pretty hate machine]

Kyreie

I can't venture an opinion on Greenpeace specifically, I just don't know enough about it. What I will say is that a lot of these groups started out with good intentions, practices and ideals. Then, unfortunately, the extremists show up and turn it upside down and inside out. The group which started out trying to protect the environment, or whatever, turns into nothing more than a terrorist cell. It's a real shame because it casts a negative light on those who were really trying to make the world a better place for everyone.

Exactly. The ALF (Animal Liberation Front) is just as bad at the scare tactics that Greenpeace is. I think it started off as a good idea, but somehow snowballed into something that's gotten a bit out of control and has lost sight of its original purpose or goal.

I just think it's unfortunate that some groups feel that using these sorts of tactics are necessary because they feel no one will listen to them if they tried to do it peacefully. I think they feel it's sort of like vigilante justice. Someone has to do the dirty work.  

[AvilesC]

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.  

[ThisEmptySoul]

I don't know much about greenpeace, but I can say almost any organization has extremists. It's the extremists that make the rest of the group look bad. It seems to be a common flaw in the general population that if one believes something to be the "right" thing, then it must be the absolute truth, and anyone speaking or working against it are the lowest forms of life that don't even deserve to breathe. It doesn't take an extremist to believe this... I've met plenty of people who think like this for some cause and they seem like average everyday people until you speak against something they believe strongly in. The extremists are the ones that act out on this thought.

Another thing that creates extremists is the belief that people learn through fear. This is also a common tactic used by people that aren't considered terrorists, such as the government, religions, and the media. Even those that speak out against these things use scare tactics to try to get you on their side, because they figure if they scare you enough, then they can control you or bring you to action... action in favor of their purpose that is.

It also doesn't take an extremist to believe people learn through fear. It seems most people believe this to some extent which is why parents spank their children. Extremists, like the name indicates, just take it to the extreme.

It's not that I'm against organizations such as the ones I listed, I'm just against scare tactics. They only work to a certain extent, but overall are usually counterproductive to the original cause. If people would realize this, and also be more open and accepting of others' ideas, extremism might not be as much of a problem.  

[Catira Norr]

Kyreie

I can't venture an opinion on Greenpeace specifically, I just don't know enough about it. What I will say is that a lot of these groups started out with good intentions, practices and ideals. Then, unfortunately, the extremists show up and turn it upside down and inside out.

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!).  

[Tao Naala]

Everyone keeps using this term 'extremist' but what do you actually mean by that? And what is your definition of a terrorist? I can only speak from my experience & knowledge in the UK but as far as I'm aware neither Greenpeace or ALF (as someone mentioned before) have never been responsible for a single death and any violent action has been directed towards property, not people. How many deaths & forced migration is going to occur as a result of climate change, especially in the (poorer) global south?

In all honesty I can't say I know all that much about Greenpeace, I tend to focus on human rights issues more. But I respect the use of direct action...a lot of organisations I know use direct action but it is not intended to create fear in the general populace but is used to (here's a random example off the top of my head) break into a weapons factory and dismantle fighter jets heading to illegal wars, or used to hit polluting companies where it hurts - in their profits, etc. After all, as Emma Goldman once said, "If voting ever changed anything they'd make it illegal".  

[Kyreie]

Tao Naala

Everyone keeps using this term 'extremist' but what do you actually mean by that? And what is your definition of a terrorist?

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.

Quote:

as far as I'm aware neither Greenpeace or ALF (as someone mentioned before) have never been responsible for a single death and any violent action has been directed towards property, not people.

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.

Quote:

How many deaths & forced migration is going to occur as a result of climate change, especially in the (poorer) global south?

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?

Quote:

But I respect the use of direct action...a lot of organisations I know use direct action but it is not intended to create fear in the general populace but is used to (here's a random example off the top of my head) break into a weapons factory and dismantle fighter jets heading to illegal wars, or used to hit polluting companies where it hurts - in their profits, etc.

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?

Quote:

a lot of organisations I know use direct action but it is not intended to create fear in the general populace

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

Quote:

I tend to focus on human rights issues more.

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?  

[Tao Naala]

Firstly, thanks for your response, you raise some interesting points!

Secondly, I don't want you to get the wrong idea about me - I'm not a violent person at all and I in no way condone actions that harm innocent people. I'm just interested in the use of direct action, what leads people to take it, and the negative connotations people can have of it.

I would say that by your definitions Greenpeace are definitely not terrorists and probably not extremists - except maybe where the illegal thing's concerned.

Let's look at that...here in the UK the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act means that it's now illegal to protest within Parliament Square. Those who wish to exercise their right to peaceful protest will be breaking the law if they do so within this zone - are these people then extremists? Organised peaceful protests (marches from A to B, esp those sanctioned and approved by the law) have little effect on government & law - a million people took to the streets of London against involvement in the Iraq war but it didn't stop our government. I can understand why people break the law, get involved in civil disobedience and direct action, because democracy doesn't seem to work and people feel disempowered/removed from decision and law making processes.

In answer to your question "whose rights?" me personally, I focus on asylum seekers/refugees rights, as well as the whole human race generally!...but that's a bit off topic. Does defending one person's rights always mean violating anothers? It depends what you mean by 'rights' - corporations have the same (and more) rights as a human being in a court of law yet are not held accountable for their actions. Their 'right' to profit (enshrined in law) is pursued with reckless abandon (see Bhopal disaster), i see no harm in violating that.

Sorry i didn't mean to make this a long post! I don't feel enough is known about this...can someone please link to something (news report, youtube etc) that shows Greenpeace using bombs or hurting people to pursue their goals? I'm concerned that this organisation is being lumped in the same category as bombers, thanks x  

[Kyreie]

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.  

[Shellykulele]

While I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, it's not because they are too extreme, but because sometimes they just don't go far enough. I'm sick of people bailing me up in the street or seeing the adverts on the net about joining greenpeace and giving lots of money. Well, I would if they didn't spend all their money on Advertising!!

Just to throw a cat amoung the pigeons, I am however a member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has often been labelled as an eco-terrorist group.

I ask the question - who is the one creating terror when dolphins are being slaughtered and dragged behind cars in Taiji, Japan. The Fishermen, or the Sea Shepherd Supporters sitting in the bay on surfboards trying to create the barrier, or trying to film the horrific event to show the world? make your own mind up - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xivmiicUR5g

What about the killing of baby seals in the Arctic? Who's the terrorist? The environmentalist putting blue dye on the fur so it isn't able to be sold? Or the sealer weilding a club with a hook and nail coming out the end beating the seal pup to death, just so some rich toff can wear a white fur coat.

Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and other like organisations might take drastic measures to put an end to destruction of land or animals, but they do not endanger life. Someone has to look after the planet.  

[charamath]

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.  

[Venuslady]

I have to agree with what others are saying.... Greenpeace started out as a good orgainization, but lately they seem to have gone off on the looney fringe.