Yes indeed; our old mate Andrew Williams is a supporter of the pirates of the Southern Ocean, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. He also reveals that he's "very much a whale supporter", which we presume means that he's endorsing his arch-rival in the Albany Ward, Cameron "WhaleOil" Slater!
Williams and Slater - the Dream Team for Albany!
13 comments:
Invent - how do you define 'ecoterrorism'?
I define eco-terrorism as committing acts of violence for environmental causes.
Wikipedia defines it thus: Eco-terrorism usually refers to acts of terrorism, violence or sabotage committed in support of ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes against persons or their property.
Given that Paul Watson from Sea Shepherd has openly boasted about scuttling whaling ships both at sea and at their berths, we have no difficulty in labelling him and his henchmen as eco-terrorists.
How do YOU define eco-terrorism Robert?
This has interested me for a long while Invent.
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
It seems to me that you (and others) have magnified, sensationalised 'acts of violence' such as throwing rancid butter, to a state you describe a 'terror', or the 'use of terror'.
Does this seem odd to you?
A person chaining themselves to a bulldozer becomes an 'eco-terrorist' - where is the 'terror' there?
I'm genuinely interested in teasing out this with you.
Personally, I think the expression/phrase/words 'eco-terrorist' have been honed as a weapon and is often being used to strike fear into ordinary people where the actions of those it is used to describe are in no way 'terror' at all.
What do you say?
Inv?
Shining laser beams at the crews of ships? Trying to immobilise ships by fouling their propellors or rudders? Attaching limpet mines to ships at the berths with the intent of sinking them? Those are acts which in my opinion go far beyond legitimate and peaceful protest Robert. Throwing rancid butter (butyric acid) is borderline.
It's interesting that you zoom in on the semantics of the term eco-terrorism when Watson himself uses hyperbole and emotion-tinged language to advance his cause.
I'm happy to debate this in greater depth, but it won't be until tonight. I guess you'll be busy with your shovel until then anyway!
Shovelling indeed Invent, but you've struck on the point I'm making - semantics (not just semantics) - words are tools, language is a weapon. This has happened with the word/s 'eco-terrorist'. I'm not challenging the seriousness of the Sea Shepherd's actions, just challenging your use of the words. I suspect you use them too freely at times that they don't apply, as do many commentators, to the detriment of clear thought.
Terror. Is that what these people are employing/causing?
If not, wrong word and I'm asking you why such a strong word is being bandied about so freely.
Who benefits from it's use and who is attacked/disadvantaged?
I'm happy to wait til the evening Invent, even tomorrow, as tonight I'm on-camera for a candidates debate.
Rob
Pffft. Sea Shepherd are terrorists. If people performed the same actions to people on land they would be considered terrorists and just plain pathetic.
SS are vandals and criminals. Somehow they think that they can bring weapons out on their boats to perform illegal vigilante acts against other nations without the backing of any nation. Hmmn.
Heine - people who are 'pathetic' and 'vandals', even 'criminals' aren't necessarily 'terrorists' are they and that's the point I'm making, seemingly beyond your grasp.
David Garrett for example, is considered 'pathetic' but you would hardly call him a 'terrorist' would you - same for Hide.
I think that it's facinating that a man who seeks to justify the actions of violent vandals is seeking to be elected to Enviroment Southland.
And it isn't the first time he has done that either.
Interesting isn't it Mr Guyton?
EXOCET
Brave Mr or Mrs Anonymous - you haven't read my posts at all, just listened to the voice in your own head and it's putting you wrong.
I'm asking only about the use of the words 'eco-terrorist' and calling on Inventory2 to explain his position on those. I've no interest here about Sea Shepherd as I've emphasised several times. That you desperately want it to seem that way says a lot about your own prejudice. How about coming out from behind your cloak of anonymity and being a brave boy or girl and discussing the issue of the use of the words 'terror', and 'eco-terrorism'.
As for standing for Environment Southland, thanks for the promotion. I am happy btw, to accept your grudging support, when and if you choose to give it :-)
To be fair Robert, the post was signed by EXOCET (down the bottom).
Good luck with your campaign BTW; we may be poles apart politically, but I commend you for having a go.
Thanks Invent.
EXOCET?
I didn't think that was a signature.
I've never come across that son of a gun before.
A missive from a missile!
Exciting!
Happy give give a little touch excitment to your your life Mr Guyton.
My definition of 'terrorism' is related to consequences. Sea Shepherd could well result in Death or serious injury. So too with ELF, so I'm happy to tag them with the 'terrorist' label.
The likes of Greenpeice, chaining themselves to coal trains etc is not terrorism. It could better be labled 'economic sabotage'.
What would you call sneaking through the night to vandalise heavy machinery owned by a local (Riverton) landowner Mr Guyton? (note that I don't think that you had anything to do with the events decribed above - but I do believe that you know who did).
I'm sorry, but you cannot count on my vote for Environment Southland Mr Guyton. Voting for any Green Party member to any position of any consequence whatsoever could also be described as an act of 'economic sabotage'.
Still I really like your work with the heritage fruit trees. Very interesting and potentially important work.
And no, I'm remaining safely anon Mr Guyton.
EXOCET
Post a Comment