Newest destruction at Nazca

[[email protected]]

This just illustrates the obvious hypocrisy of these types of groups. I've always loathed these loonies. I hope they all get caught and prosecuted.

[[email protected]]

Greenpeace does have a noble cause, but they haven't evolved beyond naive, ignorant environmentalism from the 70s.

One of the key objections to their behaviour is complete and utter ignorance about fission energy and energy production in general, coupled with typical extreme exaggeration of solar/wind capabilities. Stupidity.

One of their early leaders (or founders, can't remember) has left the organization and has become their critic. That speaks volumes. Experienced people leave and are replaced by young, stupid ones. Such policy ensures constant resetting of their microsociety, just like in other examples of similar NGOs. They are working against their cause. They lack something they like to mention too often - sustainability.

Too bad people are misinterpreting scientific research of meteorology, zoology, ecology, climatology and oceanography with often mindless approach of Greenpeace. :/

I am strongly for the preservation of environment, but I'm also familiar with facts so you won't hear me defending unconditional usage of solar panels, for example.

Whatever their policy is, destruction of our heritage as humanity is unacceptable, and their apology is meek at best. They might not actually understand what they've done.

You could say the ....'s had a noble cause if you wanted to ignore their complete disregard for human life, human rights, individual worth, utter lack of consistent morals, violent tactics, and absolute devotion to an insane ideology.

[Camacha]

This just illustrates the obvious hypocrisy of these types of groups. I've always loathed these loonies. I hope they all get caught and prosecuted.

It would not be fair to only prosecute the people involved. It was Greenpeace who organized this, it should answer for it. No use punishing the soldier if the general just sends more troops.

[[email protected]]

It would not be fair to only prosecute the people involved. It was Greenpeace who organized this, it should answer for it. No use punishing the soldier if the general just sends more troops.

I did six years on active duty and one of the first things I was taught in the military was that "just following orders" is not an excuse that would hold up in court, we are each responsible for our actions, and should be held to account for crimes we commit.

[SciMan]

I'd be morally OK with having those involved in this hunted down and locked up for the rest of their lives. Not the death penalty.

Let them live out the rest of their natural lives with them and the rest of the world knowing that the actions they committed mean that they will never be able to influence events of anyone's life, including their own, ever again.

After all, the best way to prevent environmental damage is to stop the thing causing it, and educate people about why doing it is wrong.

Somehow it seems fitting that they be "hoist by their own petard" in that manner.

[lajoswinkler]

You could say the ....'s had a noble cause if you wanted to ignore their complete disregard for human life, human rights, individual worth, utter lack of consistent morals, violent tactics, and absolute devotion to an insane ideology.

OK, that's a bit over the top. You're describing extremist groups. Greenpeace really isn't that insane as an organization.

I did six years on active duty and one of the first things I was taught in the military was that "just following orders" is not an excuse that would hold up in court, we are each responsible for our actions, and should be held to account for crimes we commit.

But he said both parties should be prosecuted. Prosecuting only one, whatever one you choose, is useless, I agree.

[[email protected]]

OK, that's a bit over the top. You're describing extremist groups. Greenpeace really isn't that insane as an organization.

But he said both parties should be prosecuted. Prosecuting only one, whatever one you choose, is useless, I agree.

Greenpeace contributed significantly to the banning of DEET, which by itself has resulted in something like 50 million deaths from Malaria in Africa, so yea I'd say they are pretty extreme.

I didn't disagree with prosecuting both, but if they can't get them all they should still get the ones they can. Thats like saying you shouldn't prosecute a hit man because the guy who paid him got away.

[Godot]

I´d say that Greenpeace has more responsibility in these regards, than its activists.

Greenpeace as an organization has the capabilities to do the necessary research to find out what effect any actions on Nazca would have on the baken desert crust at the site.

And Greenpeace would also have the responsibility to do it, before sending activists on site.

In contrast to this many, if not all, activists which performed the action might have been devoted to environmentalism, buck lack the intellectual background to know/research about these things.

On the other hand, I have to offer one thing that sheds a very different light on the anger of the peruvian government.

It seems liek the peruvian government itself doesn´t care all too much about the lines.

They allow the Rallye Paris-Dakar to pass into the site (and, no surprise, do a lot of damage to the crust) andf they also don´t do all too much against illegale mining activity taking place there.

So the reaction of the Peruvian government itself smells a lot of hypocrisy (doesn´t excuse the actions of greenpeace, of course ... but the reaction of the peruvian government with regards of greenpeace surely is unjustified, considering how little the government does with rwgards to protecting the lines)

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/12/12/for-peru-greenpeace-pulled-an-unforgivable-stunt-at-their-1500-year-old-nazca-lines-site/

Edited December 16, 2014 by Godot

[[email protected]]

Greenpeace is not a person. Holding 'greenpeace' responsible is akin to holding no one responsible, in the same way that fining corporations in the US only results in higher prices but the CEO's suffer next to no consequences. Only individuals can be held accountable for their actions, and so the individuals who vandalized the site should be prosecuted, as should anyone within the organization of Greenpeace who conspired with them (provided material or monetary support, planning or administrative functions of the crime).

Sorry if I seem to be comming off a bit more detail oriented than you would like. My degrees are in philosophy, political science, and criminal justice so I tend to push for a degree of rigor regarding semantics and ethics.

Edited December 16, 2014 by [email protected]

[lajoswinkler]

Greenpeace contributed significantly to the banning of DEET, which by itself has resulted in something like 50 million deaths from Malaria in Africa, so yea I'd say they are pretty extreme.

I didn't disagree with prosecuting both, but if they can't get them all they should still get the ones they can. Thats like saying you shouldn't prosecute a hit man because the guy who paid him got away.

You mean DDT? DEET is still used AFAIK.

I totally agree - everyone, all conspirators, should be brought to court regardless of the crime.

[Duxwing]

PERU SUES GREENPEACE!

-Duxwing

[Rainbowtrout]

Let's not let this thread go down the wrong trail.

[/PREEEMPTIVEWARNING]

[Red Iron Crown]

They allow the Rallye Paris-Dakar to pass into the site (and, no surprise, do a lot of damage to the crust) andf they also don´t do all too much against illegale mining activity taking place there.

The Paris-Dakar passes through Peru? I thought it was Europe and Africa only.

[Duxwing]

Let's not let this thread go down the wrong trail.

[/PREEEMPTIVEWARNING]

Sorry, I didn't mean to celebrate the suit--just to point it out lest others should waste time arguing whether Peru should sue or not.

-Duxwing

[Godot]

The Paris-Dakar passes through Peru? I thought it was Europe and Africa only.

Since 2009 it takes place in south america instead of europe/africa, due to security concerns in some of the african countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally

[Camacha]

I did six years on active duty and one of the first things I was taught in the military was that "just following orders" is not an excuse that would hold up in court, we are each responsible for our actions, and should be held to account for crimes we commit.

Very true, I was in no way suggesting the people involved are not responsible for what they did. They are. However, if a larger organisation had a hand in them doing what they did, that organisation should be prosecuted too. I can hardly imagine these folks coming up with this plan completely on their own, as it is very typical of a Greenpeace action.

Admittedly, order can make life for soldiers very complicated. Sometimes they are damned it they to and damned if they do not. That is a different discussion though.

[Kryten]

Sorry, I didn't mean to celebrate the suit

If you won't, I will. I hope they bleed them dry.

[Rainbowtrout]

Sorry, I didn't mean to celebrate the suit--just to point it out lest others should waste time arguing whether Peru should sue or not.

-Duxwing

It wasn't a telling off, I was just thinking that this topic could go the way of rule breaking. No need to apologize

[SelectHalfling0]

Greenpeace has never used very good tactics at making people like their opinions. I remember they tried using Lego sets that are oil-themed (gas trucks from lego city) and wrote the song "Everything's Not Awesome". They riled up the whole Lego community (young and old including myself) and were taken off youtube for copywrite violations. Not very surprised they would do this either. Do they face a fine?