|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:25 pm
Calelith
I'm starting to like you more Ani, really...I love that.
Aww...that makes me feel special. Calixti Care to help me work on my violence over IP program? I'm trying to perfect it so I can kick this one friend of mine in the shins when he's being a dumbass, like I used to. That would be an invaluable asset, we just have to make sure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:20 pm
One of my fellow reporters, as I just found out, is a "Neo-Druid". Worse is what I found her posting: GRARFGHHSD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:11 pm
True Colours of Destiny One of my fellow reporters, as I just found out, is a "Neo-Druid". Worse is what I found her posting: GRARFGHHSDThey make me want to harm things for more than a few reasons, not the least of which is that they're backing Sea Shepherd as a good org for Pagans to throw their support behind. Yes. Because everyone wants to be part of a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:16 pm
Byaggha Because everyone wants to be part of a terrorist organization. Ummmm... can you justify the use of terrorism as it pertains to them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:22 pm
TeaDidikai Ummmm... can you justify the use of terrorism as it pertains to them? Sea Shepherd? They harass vessels larger than themselves at sea, load the hulls of their own boats with concrete to make them better rams for attempts at sinking ships (at least one docked boat of theirs, which the Canadian government is keeping due to unpaid dock fees, has a 'kill count' of boats it sunk), dangerously block ship courses with their own boats in attempts to stop whaling (which, while I'm not a fan, is being done legally), they throw cocktails of acid designed to ruin whale meat and make sailors violently sick (in glass bottles, from what I've been told, which makes it even worse to do), shine lasers in the eyes of whaling boat captains, which can damage their eyes or blind them... They're not exactly friendly, and in all honesty, if they really want to stop whalers, ruining the catch isn't the way to do it anyway. That will just send them back for more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:22 pm
TeaDidikai Byaggha Because everyone wants to be part of a terrorist organization. Ummmm... can you justify the use of terrorism as it pertains to them?
What Calling the Sea Sheppard group Terrorists?
They throw acid on to Japanese whaling ships, that is done legally. Hell they (Japanese) only go after non endangered whales.
Did you see the most recent video of the Sea Sheppard group and their 'claim' of their new ship was dead in the water? A dead ship wouldn't have a wake behind them or be inching towards the Japanese whaler as it goes in a straight path. Those tankers have to plan out their movements knots in advance...considering the large size.
The Sea Sheppard group is on the same level as PETA.
Edit: Lets not forget using rope and other materials to wrap around the propellers to bring the large vessels dead in the water, which can be extremely dangerous. As well as what was said in the post above me by Byaggha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:33 pm
My problem is that causing dangerous situations isn't the same as terrorism.
Don't like the misapplication of the word.
Look, I dislike their tactics as much as the next guy, but save for the pop-culture "call anything dangerous we dislike terrorism" concept, I don't think an argument could be made to include them as a terrorist organization.
Tired of the appeals to emotion being used as political fodder myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:47 pm
I'm not sure it is just 'tactics I don't like', really.
They use violence to further their goals, have a political agenda, go for maximum psychological impact and fear on their targets, and use unlawful means to do so. This technically fits four of five ingredients of being a terrorist, doesn't it? So why wouldn't they be considered as such?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:09 pm
Byaggha They use violence to further their goals, have a political agenda, go for maximum psychological impact and fear on their targets, and use unlawful means to do so. This technically fits four of five ingredients of being a terrorist, doesn't it? So why wouldn't they be considered as such? It's the unlawful means that I question for the most part. I'm not aware of their status as hostis humani generis. I'd also contest the claim of maximum psychological impact and fear. Yes, what they are doing is dangerous- but I'm not familiar with any application of firearms, bombs etc. This demonstrates restraint in regards to their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:34 pm
Both the US and Canada, at least, have declared them legally an eco-terrorist organization. That's enough for me to consider the term's use correct - it's legal, and has been applied by a nation according to their laws. Canada calls them officially "single issue terrorists", which means this: Quote: The term "Single Issue Terrorism" is broadly accepted as extremist militancy on the part of groups or individuals protesting a perceived grievance or wrong usually attributed to governmental action or inaction. All it takes is militant action, and the direct ramming of ships, acid throwing, captain blinding acts count as such. There may not be firebombs, but there is danger to life and property, and given they throw acid in glass bottles at the deck of another ship and her sailors directly, I'd have to say there really isn't much regard for them as humans. No, they don't use firearms, but given that they're clearly loaded to sink vessels in arctic waters, I don't see how that isn't just as bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:14 pm
Byaggha Both the US and Canada, at least, have declared them legally an eco-terrorist organization. That's enough for me to consider the term's use correct - it's legal, and has been applied by a nation according to their laws. Canada calls them officially "single issue terrorists", which means this: Quote: The term "Single Issue Terrorism" is broadly accepted as extremist militancy on the part of groups or individuals protesting a perceived grievance or wrong usually attributed to governmental action or inaction. All it takes is militant action, and the direct ramming of ships, acid throwing, captain blinding acts count as such. There may not be firebombs, but there is danger to life and property, and given they throw acid in glass bottles at the deck of another ship and her sailors directly, I'd have to say there really isn't much regard for them as humans. No, they don't use firearms, but given that they're clearly loaded to sink vessels in arctic waters, I don't see how that isn't just as bad. I stand corrected. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:26 pm
what a mean thing to say. wicca aint a cult. even though your entitled to your opionon. the US government declared wicca as a religion with the same protections as any other. but i liked the way you presented your facts, even if i see no reason for to post them since you know a lot of pll would get mad. you presented them in a...how should i put this... a very nice way as in you wernt rude. so im happy bout that. but anywhoo wicca isnt a cult. and i personally believe there is no Dark Wicca. most wiccans believe if you use negative magic your not being a wiccan in doing so. as u put If it harm non do as ye will. ohwell. at least you were nice bout it. and fer that i think you.^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:31 am
To be fair, most people define the word "cult" as a group whose practices are physically or psychologically harmful to its members. While her statement indicates that she doesn't know there's another definition to the word "cult," I think what she's trying to say is that Wicca isn't a destructive cult like Heaven's Gate or Jonestown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:48 am
Yanueh To be fair, most people define the word "cult" as a group whose practices are physically or psychologically harmful to its members. Most people get it wrong. Look at it this way. If she had said "Christians don't worship Christ", I mean, after all, basic research into the cult reveals the person who popularized it used the title habitually. Second, she lied. The US does not recognize any religion. It's a violation of the Separation clause. Third, she claimed that the Wica have a theological position on what she called "negative magic". BULLSHIT. And she bastardized the rede, which is common, but again, popular doesn't equal right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:58 am
Wait, who's Non and why am I allowed to only do stuff I want to that hurts them? Sounds awfully bastardly to me. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
