Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

North Koreans responsible for GoM oil spill!Follow

QuoteReply
#27 May 04 2010 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,

You don't think they would sabotage a rig if by doing so they would set drilling in the gulf back 20yrs?


If they're environmentalists?

Uh... no.

Yeah, eco-terrorism is so totally beyond Earth First.


Not saying that torching mansions or demolishing SUVs is beyond some of the radical groups like ELF, but if you honestly think flooding the Gulf with oil is the goal of even the nuttiest environmentalists, you're on your way to being as crazy as Varus.

I'm not suggesting that at all. However, once you've crossed a line and are willing to be violent and destroy property the journey to compromising your principles is a short one. Just ask the IRA. Leadership changes, membership changes, individuals attracted by one sort of violence and prone to another. It isn't out of the scope of plausibility.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#28 May 04 2010 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Just proving that far left radicals are just as prone to violence as any other radical group.

Proving it to who? I think you're having a debate with yourself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#29 May 04 2010 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,

You don't think they would sabotage a rig if by doing so they would set drilling in the gulf back 20yrs?


If they're environmentalists?

Uh... no.

Yeah, eco-terrorism is so totally beyond Earth First.


Not saying that torching mansions or demolishing SUVs is beyond some of the radical groups like ELF, but if you honestly think flooding the Gulf with oil is the goal of even the nuttiest environmentalists, you're on your way to being as crazy as Varus.

I'm not suggesting that at all. However, once you've crossed a line and are willing to be violent and destroy property the journey to compromising your principles is a short one. Just ask the IRA. Leadership changes, membership changes, individuals attracted by one sort of violence and prone to another. It isn't out of the scope of plausibility.


So eco-terrorism covers terrorist acts by anyone claiming to be an environmentalist rather than terrorist actions which actually serve an environmentalist agenda?

Incidentally, if you "hate oil" and you destroy oil rigs, that's hardly terrorism. Sure, it's stupid, but it's not terrorism. You're destroying the things you hate directly.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#30 May 04 2010 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
Not saying that torching mansions or demolishing SUVs is beyond some of the radical groups like ELF


How about bombing the pentagon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers


Whoa... the Weathermen were about environmentalism and attacking oil rigs! News to me! And, you know, probably to the Weathermen as well. As they weren't. At all...

Quote:
Quote:
but if you honestly think flooding the Gulf with oil is the goal of even the nuttiest environmentalists, you're on your way to being as crazy as Varus.


The Gulf will recover, quickly. Destroying one well which causes a mini-disaster that might have the effect of completely shutting down any prospect of expanding oil production in the gulf might seem like a good reward for someone who's completely against any oil production in the first place.


Go figure, I think oil companies will get through this a lot better than the wildlife destroyed by the oil, not to mention the industries also affected by the mess in the Gulf. You're grasping at straws... again.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#31 May 04 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not saying that torching mansions or demolishing SUVs is beyond some of the radical groups like ELF, but if you honestly think flooding the Gulf with oil is the goal of even the nuttiest environmentalists, you're on your way to being as crazy as Varus.

I'm not suggesting that at all. However, once you've crossed a line and are willing to be violent and destroy property the journey to compromising your principles is a short one. Just ask the IRA. Leadership changes, membership changes, individuals attracted by one sort of violence and prone to another. It isn't out of the scope of plausibility.


So eco-terrorism covers terrorist acts by anyone claiming to be an environmentalist rather than terrorist actions which actually serve an environmentalist agenda?

Incidentally, if you "hate oil" and you destroy oil rigs, that's hardly terrorism. Sure, it's stupid, but it's not terrorism. You're destroying the things you hate directly.

Most definitions I could find of the term (along with the context that I intended it initially) refer to acts of terrorism or sabotage in the name of environmental causes, so yeah, destroying an oil rig if you hate oil meets the criteria, as would "terrorist acts by anyone claiming to be an environmentalist rather than terrorist actions which actually serve an environmentalist agenda."
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#32 May 04 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not saying that torching mansions or demolishing SUVs is beyond some of the radical groups like ELF, but if you honestly think flooding the Gulf with oil is the goal of even the nuttiest environmentalists, you're on your way to being as crazy as Varus.

I'm not suggesting that at all. However, once you've crossed a line and are willing to be violent and destroy property the journey to compromising your principles is a short one. Just ask the IRA. Leadership changes, membership changes, individuals attracted by one sort of violence and prone to another. It isn't out of the scope of plausibility.


So eco-terrorism covers terrorist acts by anyone claiming to be an environmentalist rather than terrorist actions which actually serve an environmentalist agenda?

Incidentally, if you "hate oil" and you destroy oil rigs, that's hardly terrorism. Sure, it's stupid, but it's not terrorism. You're destroying the things you hate directly.

Most definitions I could find of the term (along with the context that I intended it initially) refer to acts of terrorism or sabotage in the name of environmental causes, so yeah, destroying an oil rig if you hate oil meets the criteria, as would "terrorist acts by anyone claiming to be an environmentalist rather than terrorist actions which actually serve an environmentalist agenda."


The use of the word "terrorism" is often applied inconsistently for political point scoring or to demonise people you don't like.

Revelatory, I know.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#33 May 04 2010 at 1:37 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
The use of the word "terrorism" is often applied inconsistently for political point scoring or to demonise people you don't like.

Revelatory, I know.

Fortunately I didn't use the word terrorism, I used eco-terrorism, which is a fairly standard reference in the modern lexicon.

I r t3h smartz.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#34 May 04 2010 at 1:43 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Incidentally, if you "hate oil" and you destroy oil rigs, that's hardly terrorism. Sure, it's stupid, but it's not terrorism. You're destroying the things you hate directly.


You're using an awful narrow version of terrorism, yeah?

http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&hl=en&q=terrorism wrote:
Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something


http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism wrote:
S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism wrote:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/terrorism wrote:
(threats of) violent action for political purposes


Under any of those definitions, bombing an oil rig in the gulf in order to coerce others to stop drilling for oil would absolutely be terrorism.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#35 May 04 2010 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Under any of those definitions, bombing an oil rig in the gulf in order to coerce others to stop drilling for oil would absolutely be terrorism.


But destroying an oil rig in the gulf to destroy an oil rig in the gulf would not.

Quote:
Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something


Also, this is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Ever.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#36 May 04 2010 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
ElneClare
Sage
***
3,053 posts
The Monkey Wrench Gang would think about destroying dams to return a river back to it's natural state, they weren't the type to do cause destruction of natural habbitat that sabotaging an oil rig in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. Thankfully they are fictional characters of the imagination of one of my favorite writers.

Just seeing the photos of dead sea turtles and birds along the shore is sickening and the Damage to the Environment isn't minor, Varus. Just ask the People who had to deal with the effects of the Exxon Valdez long after of official clean up ended.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#37 May 04 2010 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Under any of those definitions, bombing an oil rig in the gulf in order to coerce others to stop drilling for oil would absolutely be terrorism.


But destroying an oil rig in the gulf to destroy an oil rig in the gulf would not.

I disagree, but fortunately it's still eco-terrorism.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#38 May 04 2010 at 1:52 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Under any of those definitions, bombing an oil rig in the gulf in order to coerce others to stop drilling for oil would absolutely be terrorism.
But destroying an oil rig in the gulf to destroy an oil rig in the gulf would not.


Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#39 May 04 2010 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Under any of those definitions, bombing an oil rig in the gulf in order to coerce others to stop drilling for oil would absolutely be terrorism.
But destroying an oil rig in the gulf to destroy an oil rig in the gulf would not.


Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.


Brownduck, please. I think we've established by now that nothing you have to say is of any merit.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#40 May 04 2010 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.

Brownduck, please. I think we've established by now that nothing you have to say is of any merit.

I think it's well established that none of us really offers anything meaningful to the vast treasure trove of human discourse, so why single him out?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#41 May 04 2010 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.

Brownduck, please. I think we've established by now that nothing you have to say is of any merit.

I think it's well established that none of us really offers anything meaningful to the vast treasure trove of human discourse, so why single him out?


He's a fat bisexual with tiny baby hands. Reason enough.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#42 May 04 2010 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.

Brownduck, please. I think we've established by now that nothing you have to say is of any merit.

I think it's well established that none of us really offers anything meaningful to the vast treasure trove of human discourse, so why single him out?


Contempt, mainly.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#43 May 04 2010 at 2:01 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Under any of those definitions, bombing an oil rig in the gulf in order to coerce others to stop drilling for oil would absolutely be terrorism.
But destroying an oil rig in the gulf to destroy an oil rig in the gulf would not.


Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.


Brownduck, please. I think we've established by now that nothing you have to say is of any merit.


Your statement was irrelevant, if not entirely inaccurate.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#44 May 04 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.

Brownduck, please. I think we've established by now that nothing you have to say is of any merit.

I think it's well established that none of us really offers anything meaningful to the vast treasure trove of human discourse, so why single him out?


He's a fat bisexual with tiny baby hands. Reason enough.

What good is a bisexual with tiny hands? I'd need at least a large glove size for a decent hand job.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#45 May 04 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Nowhere in the context of the conversation to which you replied was the subject of destroying an oil rig for the sole purpose of destroying said oil rig suggested, but thanks for the insight.

Brownduck, please. I think we've established by now that nothing you have to say is of any merit.

I think it's well established that none of us really offers anything meaningful to the vast treasure trove of human discourse, so why single him out?


Contempt, mainly.

Fair enough.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#46 May 04 2010 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
What good is a bisexual with tiny hands?


I suppose it might make for less intrusive fisting, not that I have any experience. BT never really got over my indifference to his post-alcoholic personality. I'm sorry BT, do you need a hug?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#47 May 04 2010 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1628468336211
View User Forum
***
1,263 posts
Moebius,

Quote:
I think it's well established that none of us really offers anything meaningful to the vast treasure trove of human discourse


Well almost none of us.



▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#48 May 04 2010 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Moebius,
Quote:
I think it's well established that none of us really offers anything meaningful to the vast treasure trove of human discourse

Well almost none of us.

Thanks, Varus. I wish I could return the compliment.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#49 May 04 2010 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1628468336211
View User Forum
***
1,263 posts
Drilling expansion in the gulf DOA in congress.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAT014404.htm


So yes if this was an attack by eco-terrorists to shut down any talk of expanding drilling in the gulf they succeeded.




▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#50 May 04 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Drilling expansion in the gulf DOA in congress.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAT014404.htm

So yes if this was an attack by eco-terrorists to shut down any talk of expanding drilling in the gulf they succeeded.


You do realize that was a prediction and not a statement of fact, right? I'm not sure it's wholly incorrect, but you need to learn to distinguish the difference, seriously.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#51 May 04 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obviously it was an attack by the coal industry to grow into the weakened oil market.

It helped block new drilling so obviously it worked and must be true.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 293 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC