Greenpeace Says Console Companies Still Playing Dirty

[Jacques 2]

Well, for all the bullshitting they do, some good comes of it

 

[stompy]

First of, why not a definition of terrorism:
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals (as stated by Wiki).

Now, I suppose you could call Green Peace eco-terrorists, but I think it's a long shot.

And for this report, yeh, well, you really think TNCs are going to sacrifice money in order to become eco-friendly? Nope, all they care about is money, so this is wasted.

 

[neddy]

"The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize." Josef Stalin

Terrorism is the use of *illegal* violence or the threat of *illegal* violence *in order to instill fear* to cause someone to perform an action, or abstain from an action. Thus "terror." And it only pertains to acts which are illegal and out of the auspices of the group.

To wit: A government is not terrorist for threatening war (War is the legal right of government) or reprisal against an organization (see previous). Neither are peace officers, because they instill fear and use violence to prevent illegal actions.

This distinction MUST be made, because otherwise, any sort of law-enforcement or national defense initiative is terrorism. Attacking civilians is a violation of the laws of war... but the difference between a civilian and a soldier is a ratty beret and an M16. More to the point: Terror/fear must be the purpose, otherwise it's just random violence (Or political/ideological violence - You can assassinate a person without being a terrorist). A soldier going crazy and shooting a bunch of people because he's crazy isn't a terrorist - He's a nutjob.

By this definition? Greenpeace may be a terrorist organization. However anyone who says "If you don't shut the hell up I'm going to put my fist through your teeth" is a terrorist as well.

 

[Arbre]

When has anyone anywhere ever cared what Greenpeace (a borderline terrorist group) thinks?

Well, I do [http://stonebytes.blogspot.com/2008/04/they-call-it-earth.html].
You cannot dismiss the absolutely abysmal quantity of resources daily harvested and consumed to build all those machines and the data supports, nor the fact that what you get in your pocket or living room is just the tip of the iceberg.

I couldn't care less that some people call some of Greenpeace's activities unlawful (which is in fact the result of an amalgalm).
For example, there are good social achievements and business evolutions which have been made real because some companies didn't follow the rules, most of the time because it didn't follow common sense.
Although this does not in any way mean that laws shouldn't be respected, I say that there are cases where laws are obviously limited and don't seem to protect citizens as much as they should.
Besides, that green "terrorism", sometimes counter productive, is largely about messages and awareness, and is a necessary dose of chaos against the lack of humanity displayed day after day by those who gross billions of dollars, thanks to the cynical exploitation of natural and human resources.

Now, I think they're going a bit over the top there. Plastic is not good for health, but people don't eat plastic either.
I think the main problem these guys had is about the mass in general. But again, many trinkets we use contain or are built upon chemicals which, put together, are dangerous to some degree, but not as small quantities.
Yes, "e-waste" is the main problem, and it's not just about the chemicals inside the products, it's literally about the amount of material that's left in those sort of junkyards.
We need to slow the pace down.

Well by those deffinitions I can think of examples were the American, Icelandic, British and French governemnts have all commited terrorist activiteies, ironically two French examples commited on Greenpeace

You can add the Reign of Terror.

The reason many people think of Greenpeace as a terrorist group, or whatever, is they get lumped in with every other whacko environmental extremist group(ELF, Earth First, and many others). Like it or not, the actions of the extreme end of the spectrum will reflect badly on every other organization working toward the same goals. I view them at best as an organization with good intentions and terrible guideance, and at worst as a bunch of raving anti-capatilists and hypocrites. They are a huge multi-national organization who take in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, are accountable to noone, and have the ear of the press.

Not that I'm feeling like Greenpeace should be defended teeth and nails... arguably, their millions would seem to do less damage to the environment than the millions, say billions, of certain corporations and companies.
Besides, they use planes? Good lord. Should they cross the oceans on wooden barques, and communicate by smoke puffs (which requires burning wood! oh noes).
They'd better start a genetic program to grow worldwide telepathic communication and telekinetic abilities to fly on their own.

I'd also rather have more people care about the environment than less.

 

[Aliencrash]

this is proof of too much free time.....but anyway bromines and phthalates are really only harmful when eaten in this plastic forms and if im gonna open up my xbox to munch on the interior i think i deserve the backlash. The point is there is next to nothing that they can really do if they want to keep the standard of technology, that being said ill get right on the next plastic

but i will say this they can kick and scream all they like about this, it doesnt change the fact that they are lucky the companies even bothered in the first place to reduce the crap inside, all companies get handed is a list which they have to comply to for the government standards after which they can do whatever they feel.