If they really want to change things in this corporate dominated world, they should stop with the talk and take violent action, like the whaling ship.
There's an island of plastic waste floating in the Pacific. Why not do something about it? I ran into this same problem with the environmental club at my university a looong time ago. Talk Talk Talk. When I proposed some action, cleaning up an illegal dump site, most balked. Too much bureaucracy, it seems they are just looking to secure the jobs with the "foundation" donations.
Please correct if I'm wrong. No need for the thumbs down, I will listen.
Don't know about AI, but I do know Greenpeace is an organization that is highly selective of what to express outrage over, and engages in and encourages racism among its followers against Japan/Japanese. Anyone that has seen the racist rhetoric the leader of Greenpeace engages in against Japan, and the racism spewed by its followers online against Japan, cannot deny this.
Greenpeace can best be described as an eco-terrorist organisation. If you research the history of Greenpeace you will see that its agenda was hijacked by political activists and the founding members were expelled when they refused to sanction direct and violent activism.
I can't say you're wrong. You make your point pretty clearly.
I'd ask what the the reasons are for taking violent action. To achieve a goal, to make me feel better and say "at least I did something", to appear tough, or something else. Talk can be better than violence, but perhaps doesn't meet the other benchmarks. I suspect clearing up the plastic waste island is no ones's real goal. It's just a symbol.
In refusing to be cowed by litigation, physical violence and state terrorism (qui?), Greenpeace reminds us all of our responsibilities as guardians of this beautiful planet, daring to reclaim it from the corporatist and statist forces who don't give a rat's arse about the horrendous environment that too many less-resourced communities must bear the brunt of.
Ditto for Amnesty and human rights.
Greenpeace cherry picks, but what effective marketing organization doesn't?
Greenpeace can best be described as an eco-terrorist organisation. If you research the history of Greenpeace you will see that its agenda was hijacked by political activists and the founding members were expelled when they refused to sanction direct and violent activism.
Greenpeace brought the shameful French nuclear testing in the Pacific - and the permanent irradiation of islander peoples native homes - to mainstream public attention in the 1980s, and paid the ultimate price by having the Rainbow Warrior bombed in a state-terrorist French government action in Auckland Harbour, killing an innocent photographer. Never forget.
Greenpeace is an organization that is highly selective of what to express outrage over, and engages in and encourages racism among its followers against Japan/Japanese.
I wouldnt join myself, I dont agree with all of their tactics, trying to sign new members up on the street etc - but to label the group as "racist" is complete, unsubstantiated nonsense. They've campaigned against French, Canadian, Chilean, Peruvian, Australian, Norwegian and American entities to name just a handful. Not to mention an ongoing campaign against GMO foods.
12 Comments
Login to comment
katsu78
I suppose organizations in general are good, with the notable exception of those organizations that aren't.
FizzBit
If they really want to change things in this corporate dominated world, they should stop with the talk and take violent action, like the whaling ship.
There's an island of plastic waste floating in the Pacific. Why not do something about it? I ran into this same problem with the environmental club at my university a looong time ago. Talk Talk Talk. When I proposed some action, cleaning up an illegal dump site, most balked. Too much bureaucracy, it seems they are just looking to secure the jobs with the "foundation" donations.
Please correct if I'm wrong. No need for the thumbs down, I will listen.
oldman_13
Don't know about AI, but I do know Greenpeace is an organization that is highly selective of what to express outrage over, and engages in and encourages racism among its followers against Japan/Japanese. Anyone that has seen the racist rhetoric the leader of Greenpeace engages in against Japan, and the racism spewed by its followers online against Japan, cannot deny this.
Zed Phillips
Greenpeace can best be described as an eco-terrorist organisation. If you research the history of Greenpeace you will see that its agenda was hijacked by political activists and the founding members were expelled when they refused to sanction direct and violent activism.
albaleo
@FizzBit,
I can't say you're wrong. You make your point pretty clearly.
I'd ask what the the reasons are for taking violent action. To achieve a goal, to make me feel better and say "at least I did something", to appear tough, or something else. Talk can be better than violence, but perhaps doesn't meet the other benchmarks. I suspect clearing up the plastic waste island is no ones's real goal. It's just a symbol.
coskuri
Amnesty is the good example and Greenpeace the wrong one. They have nothing in common.
SenseNotSoCommon
In refusing to be cowed by litigation, physical violence and state terrorism (qui?), Greenpeace reminds us all of our responsibilities as guardians of this beautiful planet, daring to reclaim it from the corporatist and statist forces who don't give a rat's arse about the horrendous environment that too many less-resourced communities must bear the brunt of.
Ditto for Amnesty and human rights.
Greenpeace cherry picks, but what effective marketing organization doesn't?
bass4funk
100% agreed!
BurakuminDes
Greenpeace brought the shameful French nuclear testing in the Pacific - and the permanent irradiation of islander peoples native homes - to mainstream public attention in the 1980s, and paid the ultimate price by having the Rainbow Warrior bombed in a state-terrorist French government action in Auckland Harbour, killing an innocent photographer. Never forget.
I wouldnt join myself, I dont agree with all of their tactics, trying to sign new members up on the street etc - but to label the group as "racist" is complete, unsubstantiated nonsense. They've campaigned against French, Canadian, Chilean, Peruvian, Australian, Norwegian and American entities to name just a handful. Not to mention an ongoing campaign against GMO foods.
MsDelicious
Any group that is trying to not let me eat Whale Sashimi is no good in my opinion.