Eco-Terrorism Legitimized By British Court (article)

[Costau D]

I'm on the fence with this one, but i just find it funny.

http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/09/1...british-court/

[chriskot]

I'm going to say "Hell no" on this one. That shouldn't happen. Letting them get away because the plant may contribute a tiny, tiny, tiny bit to global warming, which may affect us disastrously many years in the future? That's so weak that it's almost like using the butterfly effect as an excuse.

I'm all for helping the environment, but Greenpeace can be ridiculous sometimes. Most of these groups are way too alarmist for my liking, actually. Even MADD can get a little silly. And don't get me started about PETA...

[DeadlyFreeze]

Five of the six activists scaled the plant’s 650-foot smokestack in October last year to paint “Gordon” on the exterior wall.

That's not terrorism. Its called protesting and they should be charged with trespassing and criminal mischief.

This whole 'everything is terrorism' is getting old fast.

[IanE]

So how is painting something on a scientifically proven hazard eco-terrorism, and allowing PM Gordon Brown to open more of these plants isn't?

Why isn't he the eco-terrorist?

[Anid Maro]

Along the lines of the Fire Fighter/Freedom Fighter comparison... what exactly is it that eco-terrorists are terrorizing? The label sounds somewhat contrary to what these people actually believe in...

Idiotic labels aside, I'm with Deadlyfreeze. Unless they then started stenciling Gieger images all over that plant, they didn't "terrorize" anyone. Clearly a simple case of tresspassing and minor vandalization.

[Nrx]

So how is painting something on a scientifically proven hazard eco-terrorism, and allowing PM Gordon Brown to open more of these plants isn't?

Why isn't he the eco-terrorist?

eco terrorism "n. Terrorism or sabotage committed in the name of environmental causes. "

Terrorism " the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. "

with those definitions in mind, i can only conclude you dont know what your on about.

anyhoo, Browns opening them to deal with rising oil prices not to terrorize (i think? ), if you dont agree then you should protest, which is what these people did and i agree with what they did, they went to promote awareness of a problem, not to terrorize anyone into changing there views (perhaps they did cross a line, but they should be charged with that, not eco terrorism).

so whoever wrote that headline is clearly a dipshit.

PS im drunk, spelling sucks when drunk