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