kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (10/25/85)
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
jaap@mcvax.UUCP (Jaap Akkerhuis) (10/27/85)
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. If it is really save to test bombs I wonder why France is doing it on Mururoa instead of the Bois de Boulogne. jaap
tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) (10/28/85)
I got several flames after my entry about Greenpeace. Well, I admit I
was perhaps not precise enough. I'll try better now.
First, as to the fact that waters and soil in Mururoa are not
dangerously contaminated, but rather less radioactive than many common
places: I read this in one French newsmagazine, but unfortunately I don't
remember if it was in "Le Point" (center-right) or "le Nouvel Observateur"
(leftist - rather socialist). These facts were not based on some government
assertion, but on a study conducted by several scientists. If I remember
well, they gave as a reference the radioactivity of the French city of
Lille, which was much higher. Well, perhaps it was not Lille, but at least
one major French city... Then of course you are free to claim that this is
only government propaganda, but please then let me keep my illusions that
France is not like the Soviet Union, that the French press is not the
Pravda; in addition, you cannot use to its full extents the facts found by
the French media about the Rainbow Warrior affair and in the same time claim
that these media are entirely government controlled...
Now to the main argument. What I wanted to say is that there are at
least two ways of fighting for something you think is right: you can speak
out, let your ideas be known, that is fight on the intellectual level. In
this case, there is no reason for those attacked to fight back with deeds.
Of course, in many countries, you are detained and condemned for saying what
you mean; that is fortunately not the case for our western countries (NO, it
isn't... No argument will be started with those people who state that our
countries are not better than say the Soviet Union, that it is all the same
and so on... Open your eyes, please...).
The second way of fighting for your ideas is with deeds, with acts.
Here, I do not want to argue about who is right and who is wrong in the
Greenpeace affair; but it is obvious that the Greenpeace organization is not
only fighting with words: they wanted to enter prohibited areas, and in the
past years they have done many things like blocking ports and so on. I don't
say that their ideas are wrong, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to them
and to the world when the other side fights back. As an example, the
resistance fighters, during the last world war, went to war against the
nazis; they were not wrong in doing this, of course, but nevertheless, they
were not surprised when the nazis fought back... Well, they often fought
back with disproportioned force, as can certainly be said of the French
action too, but the fact remains that acts are encountered with acts...
Finally, I want to give my own opinion about fighting for peace. I
think that the fact that I mixed these personal views with the argument
above in the previous entry made things a bit difficult to understand, or
perhaps too easy to misunderstand. I think that if you want to make
something positive for peace, the only way is to be a man of peace yourself,
in your surroundings. I have often expressed that I find a bit ridiculous
that people who got the Nobel prize for peace were not even able to live in
peace with their own wife; I know at least of one of them who has divorced
and remarried twice or thrice. Let me also mention the women in England who
camped at an air base to fight for peace, but they stayed there for so long
that some of the husbands divorced... Of course, you could say that you
cannot do enough by just staying in your own small surroundings; I think you
can, and that if you have got peace *inside* yourself, if you are able to
live in peace with your family, your neighbours, your collegues at work,
then and only then you are a man or a woman of peace.
Ladies and gentlemen, these were my views. The argument about Greenpeace
vs. France can be flamed, but I don't think you can flame somebody for his
opinion, at least not in our countries. But I am open to exchange of views
and disagreements; it is your right to disagree and to have another opinion,
I won't flame you for that. Therefore, *flames* about the previous paragraph
will be ignored, but open-minded discussion will be accepted without
hesitation.
--
--- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy)
UUCP: ...!vmucnam!crin!tombre or ...!inria!crin!tombre
COSAC: crin/tombre
POST: Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
I have found peace with God and with all humans.tomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak) (10/30/85)
In article <132@crin.UUCP> tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) writes: > Now to the main argument. What I wanted to say is that there are at >least two ways of fighting for something you think is right: you can speak >out, let your ideas be known, that is fight on the intellectual level. In >this case, there is no reason for those attacked to fight back with deeds. >Of course, in many countries, you are detained and condemned for saying what >you mean; that is fortunately not the case for our western countries (NO, it >isn't... No argument will be started with those people who state that our >countries are not better than say the Soviet Union, that it is all the same >and so on... Open your eyes, please...). no we're not the same, the influences are simply more subtle and consequently more insidious. > > The second way of fighting for your ideas is with deeds, with acts. >Here, I do not want to argue about who is right and who is wrong in the >Greenpeace affair; but it is obvious that the Greenpeace organization is not >only fighting with words: they wanted to enter prohibited areas, and in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ why are they prohibited? Who prohibited? >past years they have done many things like blocking ports and so on. I don't >say that their ideas are wrong, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to them >and to the world when the other side fights back. > >I think that if you want to make >something positive for peace, the only way is to be a man of peace yourself, >in your surroundings. I have often expressed that I find a bit ridiculous >that people who got the Nobel prize for peace were not even able to live in >peace with their own wife; I know at least of one of them who has divorced >and remarried twice or thrice. Let me also mention the women in England who >camped at an air base to fight for peace, but they stayed there for so long >that some of the husbands divorced... Of course, you could say that you >cannot do enough by just staying in your own small surroundings; I think you >can, and that if you have got peace *inside* yourself, if you are able to >live in peace with your family, your neighbours, your collegues at work, >then and only then you are a man or a woman of peace. Say what? I don't believe that being a man of peace neccessarily means getting along well with people. There are powerful forces at work in the world against true peace. Those forces MUST be fought, I agree, with a peaceful heart. Gandhi created quite a bit of conflict however. Are you prepared to say Gandhi did not work from that peaceful heart? Maybe there are some people out there who could sincerely argue that viewpoint, but I wonder if we'll see a lot of flaming as a result. Perhaps I still misunderstand, if so enlighten me. >I have found peace with God and with all humans. Oh yeah? You make it sound easy, are you taking disciples? bill tomczak@harvard.{HARVARD.EDU, UUCP}
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (11/01/85)
> > The second way of fighting for your ideas is with deeds, with acts. > Here, I do not want to argue about who is right and who is wrong in the > Greenpeace affair; but it is obvious that the Greenpeace organization is not > only fighting with words: they wanted to enter prohibited areas, and in the > past years they have done many things like blocking ports and so on. I don't > say that their ideas are wrong, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to them > and to the world when the other side fights back. Is a violent response (blowing a hole in a ship) appropriate to a non-violent act ([planning to] enter prohibited areas)? > As an example, the > resistance fighters, during the last world war, went to war against the > nazis; they were not wrong in doing this, of course, but nevertheless, they > were not surprised when the nazis fought back... Well, they often fought > back with disproportioned force, as can certainly be said of the French > action too, but the fact remains that acts are encountered with acts... Is this equating the acts of the French government of today with the acts of the Nazi's in France during WWII? --henry schaffer
dta@cpsc53.UUCP (Doug Anderson) (11/05/85)
> > Finally, I want to give my own opinion about fighting for peace. I > think that the fact that I mixed these personal views with the argument > above in the previous entry made things a bit difficult to understand, or > perhaps too easy to misunderstand. I think that if you want to make > something positive for peace, the only way is to be a man of peace yourself, > in your surroundings. I have often expressed that I find a bit ridiculous > that people who got the Nobel prize for peace were not even able to live in > peace with their own wife; I know at least of one of them who has divorced > and remarried twice or thrice. Let me also mention the women in England who > camped at an air base to fight for peace, but they stayed there for so long > that some of the husbands divorced... Of course, you could say that you > cannot do enough by just staying in your own small surroundings; I think you > can, and that if you have got peace *inside* yourself, if you are able to > live in peace with your family, your neighbours, your collegues at work, > then and only then you are a man or a woman of peace. > > Ladies and gentlemen, these were my views. The argument about Greenpeace > vs. France can be flamed, but I don't think you can flame somebody for his > opinion, at least not in our countries. But I am open to exchange of views > and disagreements; it is your right to disagree and to have another opinion, > I won't flame you for that. Therefore, *flames* about the previous paragraph > will be ignored, but open-minded discussion will be accepted without > hesitation. > > -- > --- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy) > UUCP: ...!vmucnam!crin!tombre or ...!inria!crin!tombre > COSAC: crin/tombre > POST: Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France > > I have found peace with God and with all humans. HERE HERE!!!! a voice of reason cries out!!!!!! While I found the actions of the French government distastefull in the Greenpeace affair I completely agree with your observations. At the risk of pontificating "those who live by the sword surely will die by it" Your comment about being a "man or woman of peace" is well stated. Examples of people claiming to be men of peace while practiceing violent acts abound in the history of the world, from Caeser, to Stalin, to Hitler, to name a few of the better known. Sir, I don't know who you are or your political affiliations, etc. but if more people in this messed up world had your opinions it is my opinion that we would all be better off. Thank you for a very enjoyable posting. It's nice to see someone use the net for constructive comments instead of destructive flames. Douglas T Anderson Orlando, Florida USA My opinions are strictly my own and do not reflect the opinions of anyone I work for or are associated with in any shape of fashion.
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (11/08/85)
> HERE HERE!!!! a voice of reason cries out!!!!!! > > > While I found the actions of the French government > distastefull in the Greenpeace affair I completely > agree with your observations. At the risk of pontificating > "those who live by the sword surely will die by it" Where? Where? Your risk is not so much pontificating as irrelevance. Greenpeace does not "live by the sword." Being selectively obnoxious hardly qualifies as violence in my book. The action of the French government was not only distasteful, but stupid. Thanks to its action, Greenpeace is now $100 richer than it was, courtesy of me. I'm sure many others reponded the same way. I hardly think that was the goal of the French government. Jeff Winslow
ciaran@ogesml0.UUCP (ciaran) (11/09/85)
As far as entering prohibited areas is concerned, is an act like flying over the sakhalin island (Korean airliner incident), on which it just so happens that important military installations are installed, or over US air bases (the Cubans had the nasty habit of doing this on a Havana -> Montreal flight really a "non-violent" act. Who was it that said that "one spy is worth ten infantry divisions." This is however what Greenpeace is doing; entering prohibited areas (i.e. the 12 mile limit) is prohibited under all international law, and the US , Sweden (mining soviet spy submarines), &c and other countries have a tendency to take potshots at people when they do so. I would suggest that those people who are shocked by my reference to the korean airliner incident read up on articles in this years Aviation and Space weekly. Recent facts establish that: 1. The US government (CAA) was aware that the airliner was of course less than 1/2 hour after it left Anchorage Alaska. 2. Japan Defense Agency radar shows that the pilot of the 747 took evasive action (including diving several thousand feet) from the MIG-2X for more than a quarter of an hour, before being shot down. This is contrary to another piece of international law (which dates to before the American revolution), stating that civilian vessels must "heave to" to military vessels, including military vessels of a foreign, not necessary allied country, when requested to do so, even in international waters/air space. Obviously this requirement applies only to peactime. The fact that the korean airliner was in Soviet airspace can hardly be said to arrange anything. Ciaran O'Donnell (NOT a French citizen) Centre National d'Etudes de Telecommunications FRANCE
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/11/85)
While I found the actions of the French government distastefull in the Greenpeace affair I completely agree with your observations. ...if more people in this messed up world had your opinions it is my opinion that we would all be better off. Right: off to hell! -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/14/85)
> I would suggest that those people who are shocked by my > reference to the korean airliner incident read up on articles in > this years Aviation and Space weekly. Recent facts establish that: > 1. The US government (CAA) was aware that the airliner was > of course less than 1/2 hour after it left Anchorage Alaska. This is under dispute. It is my understanding that someone claims to have heard a voice discussing warning the pilot on a recording at a tracking station. Other people have claimed no such statement can be made out on th tape. This will probably be resolved by analysis of the tape. Of course, if the analysis is inconclusive it follows that an unaided listener would be mistaken in claiming to hear that statement. > 2. Japan Defense Agency radar shows that the pilot of the 747 > took evasive action (including diving several thousand feet) from the MIG-2X > for more than a quarter of an hour, before being shot down. This is contrary > to another piece of international law (which dates to before the American > revolution), stating that civilian vessels must "heave to" to military > vessels, including military vessels of a foreign, not necessary allied > country, when requested to do so, even in international waters/air space. > Obviously this requirement applies only to peactime. This is probably incorrect. The Japanese radar was operating at the limits of its range and the reported change in aircraft position is consistent with the error of the radar. -- "Superior firepower is an Ethan Vishniac important asset when {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan entering into ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU negotiations" Department of Astronomy University of Texas
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (11/16/85)
In article <108@ogesml0.UUCP> ciaran@ogesml0.UUCP (ciaran) writes: > > As far as entering prohibited areas is concerned, is an act like >flying over the sakhalin island (Korean airliner incident), on >which it just so happens that important military installations >are installed, or over US air bases (the Cubans had the nasty >habit of doing this on a Havana -> Montreal flight really a "non-violent" >act. > Who was it that said that "one spy is worth ten infantry >divisions." > This is however what Greenpeace is doing; entering prohibited >areas (i.e. the 12 mile limit) is prohibited under all international law, >and the US , Sweden (mining soviet spy submarines), &c >and other countries have a tendency to take potshots at people when >they do so. I take it from the tone of your article that you think these actions are appropriate. Congratulations - you may be the only person on the net who approves of the shooting down of KAL 007. If not, why bring it up? Custom does not make correctness. You also have a problem with relevance, or at least applicability. Since Greenpeace is hardly in the business of espionage, either for themselves or any national power, your "justification" is too flimsy to stand. But suppose, just for the sake of argument, they were. What far-fetched analogy would you use to justify the mining of the ship *in the harbor of a neutral country* as opposed to firing on it inside the prohibited area? Jeff Winslow
ciaran@ogesml0.UUCP (ciaran) (11/21/85)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site ogesml0.UUCP References: <487@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <34@unc.unc.UUCP> <417@stcvax.UUCP> <127@crin.UUCP> <2337@flame.warwick.UURe: Il accuse... <108@ogesml0.UUCP> > > As far as entering prohibited areas is concerned, is an act like > >flying over the sakhalin island (Korean airliner incident), on > > ... > I take it from the tone of your article that you think these actions > are appropriate. Congratulations - you may be the only person on the > net who approves of the shooting down of KAL 007. If not, why bring it > up? Custom does not make correctness. > You also have a problem with relevance, or at least applicability. Since > Greenpeace is hardly in the business of espionage, either for themselves > or any national power, your "justification" is too flimsy to stand. > But suppose, just for the sake of argument, they were. What far-fetched > analogy would you use to justify the mining of the ship *in the harbor ... 1. I am concerned by content, not with tone. Several people, of different nationalities, said that violating frontiers is a "non-violent act". This is rubbish -- just wait till someone violates yours and see what your army does. Precedents are legion: WW1, the British trawlers/Iceland incidents, &c. 2. The insinuation that I approve the shooting down of KAL 007 dishonours only its author. Again, content please not "tone", "form", or other nonsense 3. Relevance and applicability. I did not say (because there is no full proof, one way or the other that KAL 007) was a spy ship. In this sense, its case is applicable. As for relevance, it is clear. The discussion was not about the bombing (which everyone agrees on) but about Greenpeace and the methods "non-violent" or "a little violent" and there admissibility to achieve "a good cause." be cleared up) that KAL 007 was a spy ship. Methods in question: storming barricades, crossing the 12 mile limit when a (top secret) nuclear explosion is in progress, flying over military installations on Sakhalin island by accident or by design. 4. In all cases, what interests me primarily is the truth. The truth about KAL 007 has never been clearly established. I regret that and I regret that the truth about the Greenpeace incident has not been established (the truth clearly goes against the French, but also against the New Zealenders who tracked the spy team, BEFORE the explosion, and who hence have a moral guilt). Above all, I regret that the net be used for partisan, subjective and extremist opinions, of whatever nature: pacifist, national chauvinist "My country right or wrong", or (USENET version), "The other country, wrong or doesn't wash as white." Ciaran O'Donnell "que ceux qui prennent leur pieds en lisant 'les news' aillent plutot rue St. Denis."
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (12/02/85)
In article <110@ogesml0.UUCP> ciaran@ogesml0.UUCP (ciaran) writes: >1. I am concerned by content, not with tone. Several people, of >different nationalities, said that violating frontiers is a "non-violent act". >This is rubbish -- just wait till someone violates yours and see what >your army does. Precedents are legion: WW1, the British trawlers/Iceland >incidents, &c. Fishing boats that violate frontiers off the Pacific coast are apprehended, occasionally confiscated, captains fined, etc. They are not blown up in the harbors of third party countries. Violating frontiers is strictly against the law, but it is rubbish to claim that such actions are "violent". (Remember that the Rainbow Warrior, despite its name, is not a military craft, and is not outfitted for battle.) Silly overreactions by my country's army or anyone else's do not change that one bit. >2. The insinuation that I approve the shooting down of KAL 007 >dishonours only its author. Again, content please not "tone", "form", or other nonsense I don't feel particularly dishonored. I understood you to say that Greenpeace, in having its ship bombed, was reaping the proper harvest of its frontier-crossing actions. Since you gave KAL007 as an example, I assumed you believed its case was similar. So you see, it was really your content that led me to make my statement, and I erred when I said it was the tone of your article that did so. And tone or form are not nonsense. They frequently communicate when the content is ambiguous. As it was, to me, in your article, due to your somewhat unusual writing style. Maybe if I knew French we could communicate more effectively... Jeff Winslow
paul@unisoft.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (12/09/85)
<oog> I think the problem here is to to with national outlooks on 'justice' the French justice system works differently from most 'British' ones, one is assumed guilty untill proven innocent (not quite true but close enough). The Rainbow Warrior had not tresspassed into French waters even though they intended to. (Of course the above paragraph applies to what happens after a crime has been committed ....). A few years back another GreenPeace ship (the 'Free' not the 'Rainbow Warrior') did enter French territory to stop an atmospheric test, they were arrested, transported to Tahiti where they staged a hunger strike, and were then force fed.... At the same time a New Zealand frigate was standing off the atomic test site in international waters but downwind in the fallout zone, also to try and stop the test. Needless to say this was the last time the French did any atmospheric testing, prior to this each test was followed by a measurable rise in the level of radiation in milk measured in NZ .... NZ took France to the world court to stop the testing and won, but the French ignored it (... much like Nicuragua and the US at the moment). Paul Campbell ..!ucbvax!unisoft!paul ..!houxj!fafnir!pc