Thread: People Who Fight Back

Are people harmed or targeted by these bombs?

They have taken up arms against civilization... hunt them down and kill them.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Are people harmed or targeted by these bombs?

Its in a very remote area and the bombs seem to be intended to cause damage only to the pipeline itself.

Some might argue that the leaks caused by the damage are a threat to humans, but in reality gas leaks from pipelines are always there and the mere existence of a pipeline itself poses a level of risk to those who live in the area, directly and indirectly through damage to the environment from development of these projects.

Andrew

If they feel their cause warrants violent action then more power to them. Still, those who play with fire....

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Over the years there has been bombing along the Encana pipeline in northern BC. Here is a letter written by the bomber recently warning of more attacks to come:

2008?09 British Columbia pipeline bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



http://i.imgur.com/oNlBc.jpg

Andrew

Whoever wrote that note sounds like an idiot.

Originally Posted by tsquare

They have taken up arms against civilization... hunt them down and kill them.

premise three of endgame, by Derrick Jensen:

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Thank You for giving truth to that premise.

Andrew

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Whoever wrote that note sounds like an idiot.

but clever enough to bomb a huge corporation on 4 different occasions and not get caught (yet).

Andrew

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

If they feel their cause warrants violent action then more power to them. Still, those who play with fire....

It kind of depends on your definition of violence. I don't consider sabotage to be violent. Certainly illegal, but not, in my opinion, violent.

If you use a pistol to open a can of beans, it's not violent, per se. (Just kind of stupid.)

Originally Posted by Andrewl

premise three of endgame, by Derrick Jensen:

Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.

Thank You for giving truth to that premise.

Andrew

Would you feel any better if I killed you with a rock? Sharp stick? Flint Knife?

Thanks for allowing me to illustrate that there is no correlation between 'industrial civilization' and violence.

Quoting fools does not make one intelligent.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

It kind of depends on your definition of violence. I don't consider sabotage to be violent. Certainly illegal, but not, in my opinion, violent.

If you use a pistol to open a can of beans, it's not violent, per se. (Just kind of stupid.)

We're talking about bombing in this case though. Goes a bit beyond simply loosening screws and the like.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Would you feel any better if I killed you with a rock? Sharp stick? Flint Knife?
Thanks for allowing me to illustrate that there is no correlation between 'industrial civilization' and violence.

Quoting fools does not make one intelligent.

The only thing your post proves is that there is no correlation between you posting something and an understanding of basic logic.

Andrew

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

We're talking about bombing in this case though. Goes a bit beyond simply loosening screws and the like.

The coal industry uses bombs to remove the tops off of mountains. Does our culture consider that to be violent?

Andrew

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The only thing you post proves is that there is no correlation between you posting something and an understanding of basic logic.
Andrew

Rock+your* head= dead

That is about as basic as one can get.





*Stated for illustration only. I don't want to kill Andrew... if he didn't exist we would have to invent him just to be amused