Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site warwick.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!warwick!kay
From: kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Il accuse...
Message-ID: <2337@flame.warwick.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 13:07:57 EST
Article-I.D.: flame.2337
Posted: Fri Oct 25 13:07:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 06:17:06 EST
References: <487@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <34@unc.unc.UUCP> <417@stcvax.UUCP> <127@crin.UUCP>
Reply-To: kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker)
Organization: VLSI Group, Warwick University, UK
Lines: 45
Xpath: warwick flame flame ubu

In article <127@crin.UUCP> tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) writes:
>     Someone can be an  enemy without being armed.  The propaganda war is  a
>war  like the others,  especially when  one party  (Greenpeace in this case)
>uses wrong facts and induces many people in errors:
>     - The  waters around  Mururoa are  *NOT* radioactive, rather less  than
>many other places in the world.
>     -  The island   soil  itself has   *NOT* been  affected  by the nuclear
>explosions. The  seismic activity  of this  region has  remained *VERY*  low
>compared to  many  places  where  people   live   without    any perceptible
>earthshake.

Fascinating... but could you give us the sources for your information?

>     I put in doubt Greenpeace being an organization for peace. Why then are
>they  going to war  against countries? 

Oh, really?  Please substantiate your assertions.  In what way, exactly, is
Greenpeace going to war with anyone?

> ...One can be a man of
>peace, in  every  situation of  life, but I  doubt that  this  means to have
>attitudes like the Greepeace people, disrupting others...

As far as I can make out, Greenpeace has committed no aggressive acts, nor
does it intend to do so.  Have I missed something?

>     This  being  said, it is not at all  my intention to present the French
>government or  military as those who  are right. No, France *AND* Greenpeace
>are *both* wrong, they  are both warmongers, none of the parties are working
>*FOR* peace. They are  in war with each other, and  in war  many things  are
>done, not always kind things... In  this way, it is an act  of sabotage  and
>not  of terrorism, as terrorism is  the intentional  murder or kidnapping of
>*innocent* civilians, to be more precise  than Frank  Silbermann. And  in my
>opinion the Greepeace people are not *innocent*.
>

Karl, unless you can substantiate your assertions, I am going to have to
disagree strongly with you.  Unsubstantiated accusations of warmongering
and sabotage are rather dangerous things, are they not?

I look forward to your response.
							Kay
-- 
rmgroup 'em till they glow...			
			... mcvax!ukc!warwick!flame!kay