IMO I find she doesn't. She articulates an intelligent argument of her views. It's all there in black and white.
Terrorists bomb a sour gas pipeline in BC
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
IMO I find she doesn't. She articulates an intelligent argument of her views. It's all there in black and white.
apparently none of you have lived near these pipelines. I can't believe that you can sit there and declare this some innocuous form of protest. I apparently carry a much different view, having family working in the patch, having had these pipelines running past houses I've owned in the past, having lost acquaintances to H2S, having had friends 'knocked down' by it at work. If you didn't grow up around this danger, you didn't have it drilled into your head from day one that this **** can and will kill you, then I'll consider you blissfully ignorant at this point, to how it can make your blood run cold to realize that you have acquaintances, friends, and family, being put at risk for the sake of someone's 'complaint'.
It is obvious from the bombings that intimidation and fear wasn't the intent of the action. If that were the intent then a remote section of pipe wouldn't have been targeted.
Nor have you won.
I'm not sure why it matters if the action is terrorism or not anyway (not that it was) because the intent is to stop a corporation from killing people slowly with their poison gas. That is honourable.
No wolf. I don't. But sometimes when I'm frustrated I don't mind tossing out the sarcasm.
That's why it's in purple. This time, I find an element of bias. It's all there in black and white ... no grey. Right or wrong with no room for negotiation. We have people die around here from hydrogen sulphide poisoning too. This is mining country. Sudbury Basin ores are high in sulphur content. It also forms in liquified manure spreader tanks. Just recently, three people died in one.
Whatever this destruction, it might help to know whether the person who placed the charge was experienced. If so ... he knew what he was doing in placing the charge so earth shut off the gas. If he wanted to cause death ... he would have blown the pipe.
Not to mention there is no legal way to stop a corporation from poisoning a population. Are people really expected to die off slowly while something like this is battled in court for 30 or 40 years? Meanwhile how many children will be made sick from the pollution?
What is it to an oil company to pay off some fines and continue polluting? I see this all the time in the pulp and paper industry in BC. It makes me sick. These b@stards are causing leukemia in children because it's less expensive to "externalize" the cost of waste removal and pay fines than to clean up their mess.
I don't know the whole story behind these bombings but I know enough not to condemn them right away.
Obviously the stuff burns. If it's so safe, why aren't they generating electricity or heating homes with it?
Ford with regards to Pinto.... It will be less expensive to pay out the lawsuits that it will be to redesign and retool the fuel tank....
Ford with regards to Pinto.... It will be less expensive to pay out the lawsuits that it will be to redesign and retool the fuel tank....
Last edited:
Bombing's not necessary to address concerns like that. There is SO much power behind the environmental movement right now, that this sort of thing is often the last resort only for conspiracy theorists who are unwilling to believe what's been found.
The rates of leukemia are worst in cities, near gas stations. They haven't been found to be any higher in the vicinity of flare stacks (which are used less and less, and have changed dramatically in their efficiency over the years). The government DOES these studies, and they do release their findings. There just happen to be people who don't bother to put the time into looking for them, and would rather resort to hysterics.
Ultimately, no matter how many times these morons risk their lives and the lives of anyone else, people will keep gassing up vehicles and keep heating their homes. If you think for one second that the worst source of pollution is flare stacks, and not the combined output of all our personal gas burners, you'd be sadly mistaken.
The rates of leukemia are worst in cities, near gas stations. They haven't been found to be any higher in the vicinity of flare stacks (which are used less and less, and have changed dramatically in their efficiency over the years). The government DOES these studies, and they do release their findings. There just happen to be people who don't bother to put the time into looking for them, and would rather resort to hysterics.
Ultimately, no matter how many times these morons risk their lives and the lives of anyone else, people will keep gassing up vehicles and keep heating their homes. If you think for one second that the worst source of pollution is flare stacks, and not the combined output of all our personal gas burners, you'd be sadly mistaken.
Absolutely I have an element of bias. The field my father and husband work in was terrorized by Weibo Ludwig, and has been under threats from assorted eco terrorists for as long as I can remember. While they still happily burn natural gas in their furnaces, drive their cars, and shop at the local grocery store, a lone few have used terror to try to make the choice for the working class, as to where they're allowed to work and how they're allowed to live. Of course I have a bias about such behavior. I have a huge bias about seeing land, people, and livelihoods put at risk through violence rather than through diplomatic means in a democratic country. HUGE.
And here we have the Temagami old-growth forests being spiked. As of yet, no tree-hugger/pipe-blaster/smelter swarmer has figured out a way to make an attack on a mine look just. Now that this global warming thing has newly-minted environmentalists believing the sky's going to fall tomorrow at noon or next week in January, it's as fashionable to be an "eco-terrorist" as it was to be a placard-carrying war protestor in the sixties.
And see, that pisses me off just the same. Well, sorry, worse even since it's a DIRECT threat. Terrorizing the workers in order to try to force the hand of business. Especially a business that, in the end, is about supplying its workers. A vicious cycle. How many of the people who spike these trees live their lives without ever using wood? None. But they think it's okay to injure or kill to be heard. :angryfire:
The word terrorism has taken on deeper and more profound meaning in the first decade of this century. Essentially those who have deep pockets can afford high grades of multiple forms of terrorism those who don't have to use makeshift tools. Terrorism is actually the normal universal motivator and catalyst. It is employed in a wide range of forms.
The terrorism of an isolated bomb used against the terrorism of industrial despotism. It's an interesting subject. If you're not terrorized are you really living to the fullest? I don't think you are.
The terrorism of an isolated bomb used against the terrorism of industrial despotism. It's an interesting subject. If you're not terrorized are you really living to the fullest? I don't think you are.
Hi Karrie.How's it going? You've raised some very cogent points I think. What is the best use of those trees? Where have those spikers learned their terrorism? Nobody terrorizes workers more than employers. Forcing the hand of business always results in one form or another of terrorism I think. This is a great subject to discuss.
The word terrorism has always been in our vocabulary and its meaning hasn't changed: a terrorist is someone we don't like who uses tactics we don't.
For example the submarine was a terror weapon when only the Germans had it. Now its just a standard piece of equipment.
Another: we go on suicide missions, terrorists try and become martyrs.
Another: when we bomb civilians its a natural consequence of war, when they do it it's a despicable act of cowardice.
For example the submarine was a terror weapon when only the Germans had it. Now its just a standard piece of equipment.
Another: we go on suicide missions, terrorists try and become martyrs.
Another: when we bomb civilians its a natural consequence of war, when they do it it's a despicable act of cowardice.
Maybe you need to go around and lecture everyone that has lost a kid to pollution then - set them straight in their crazy thinking.
You can start with a friend of mine that lost his two year old daughter to leukemia.
I'm sure your love for big industry and your little "facts" will warm his heart.
Who needs a child when you can be lectured by a neocon?
Was your friend living closer to a flare stack or a gas station? Downwind from a gas plant? A refinery? Pesticide plant? Scott there are a plethora of pollutants in the world right now capable of causing leukemia, and not all are petro related, and flare stacks, of the petro side of things, are the least of your worries. So explain how bombing sour gas lines is justified because of a child in a completely different part of the province, not likely even exposed to the same pollutant?
And if you can't do so without getting rude and calling names, don't bother. I'll stick with civil convo instead thanks. But thanks for being off the mark on my party affiliation, it proves a lot for me.
Here we go again:
Main Entry:ter·ror·ismPronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\ Function:noun Date:1795 : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist
— ter·ror·is·tic
Source
Main Entry:ter·ror
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing ; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
Source
===============================//===========================
So the bombing of the gas line was against a corporation not a government or population. It wasn't meant to cause fear but was meant to cause property damage.
It was meant to stop people from dying due to the pollution not cause it.
So you and Avro both fail - again :roll:
"sigh"
It's still a crime.
That wasn't the point and you know it.
Your saying that people should try and make changes through "legal" means even though that may take decades or even longer - so what if some kids die; industrial tyranny is acceptable people trying to force change isn't.
That's the stand you need to explain to people who have lost their children to pollution.
Pollution in Alberta from gas flares force farmers to move.
Primary cause of CO is automobiles, that is, unless you live under gas flares, and it is a deadly poison.
Effects of carbon monoxide air pollution in pregnancy on neonatal nucleated red blood cells
Breathing it.
Effect on children
Compared to smoking: "Cigarette smoking reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood and increases the level of harmful substances, such as carbon monoxide. This, combined with the effects of smoking on the heart and blood vessels, can limit the benefits from physical activity."
"Waste gases, including hydrogen sulphide-rich gases, and gases burned during emergencies are flared at these facilities. "
other by products:
- particulate matter
- volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene and xylene
- polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and
- small quantities of sulphur compounds such as carbon disulphide (CS2) and carbonyl sulphide (COS)
Anyway, I don't favour killing children for oil. I respect anyone that defends their children from the tyranny of government or industry. If that is the intent of these bombers then I say more power to them.
Thank you Scott you have presented a very good case for benevolent terrorism in my opinion.
We can redily understand that terrorism has gotten a bad rap. Does it really deserve it?
When can terrorism be constructive?
Can terrorism be a force for good?
Is terrorism really all that bad?
We can redily understand that terrorism has gotten a bad rap. Does it really deserve it?
When can terrorism be constructive?
Can terrorism be a force for good?
Is terrorism really all that bad?
It isn't actually always bad. Almost every historical change in our society has come through violence. A violence that someone could call terrorism. The slaves used terrorism to fend of their chains. Indians used terror to defend their land. The French used terror to establish the nation state. The Americans used terror to fend of the British. The labour movement used terror to stop child labour. I could go on all day.
Just because the popular media has labeled something as "terror" doesn't mean it is. It might just be progressive social change - which is always terrifying to the established elitists.
Double think is insidious.
We are told to accept the tyranny and the terror that entails from industry and government while we ourselves can't employ the same means to defend ourselves and our children? Hog wash!
Last edited: