Oh no they were inconvenient and annoying, exactly as intended! It’s almost like they were protesting something!
Meanwhile I’m wondering why ecoterrorism isn’t more popular. Not saying I support it (or saying I don’t), I am just surprised that there are less desperate people than I expected.
aren’t those hired for conflict zones? special forces are not really trained for security against social engineering with a high vis. which would be the routine operation protocol for any self respecting eco terrorist.
My biggest concern with ecoterrorism is that a lot of things that should be destroyed, if not done so in a safe way, may end up having worse environmental impacts than if they were left alone.
How much actual “eco-terrorism” has there been? Any oil rigs blown up in your area? I don’t even see any protest groups advocating for it.
I’m not saying you’re wrong but we should be significantly more concerned about the ecological destruction that’s actually happening and still increasing right now.
i think the guy is saying we need eco terrorism. but a sustainable organic free-range eco terrorism, so that the acts of terror don’t produce a worse outcome of what we are doing now.
like blowing up an oil rig will cause an oil spill at sea. sabotaging oil tankers on ports doesn’t spill oil on the sea but it has the same effect as blowing up oil rigs.
i think eco terrorism will be mostly focused sabotage. all eco terrorist need to do is stop production of refined goods, supply line being global, sabotaging some unprotected factory in bangladesh that is the only one that produces a specific component could stop production of some given product globally.
Edit to be clear: I think it is a worthwhile concern, not a reason to condemn all ecoterrorist action. It is just important that such action be well planned.
I think it pales in risk comparison to stuff like regular war though, and that keeps happening. They blow shit up for maximum impact and effect. whereas I would hope ecoterrorists are at least motivated to attack stuff in a non-environmentally-destructive way. Or at least, pick targets that have greater positive global impact than local negative impacts, but that kinda thing can’t be an easy decision.
Oh no they were inconvenient and annoying, exactly as intended! It’s almost like they were protesting something!
Meanwhile I’m wondering why ecoterrorism isn’t more popular. Not saying I support it (or saying I don’t), I am just surprised that there are less desperate people than I expected.
Apparently a common career for ex-soldiers and special forces is security for oil companies. So they’re clearly surprised too.
Only a matter of time at this point, I suspect.
Go to the Middle East to liberate petrol, come back home to work for the same companies without a proxy!
aren’t those hired for conflict zones? special forces are not really trained for security against social engineering with a high vis. which would be the routine operation protocol for any self respecting eco terrorist.
My biggest concern with ecoterrorism is that a lot of things that should be destroyed, if not done so in a safe way, may end up having worse environmental impacts than if they were left alone.
How much actual “eco-terrorism” has there been? Any oil rigs blown up in your area? I don’t even see any protest groups advocating for it.
I’m not saying you’re wrong but we should be significantly more concerned about the ecological destruction that’s actually happening and still increasing right now.
i think the guy is saying we need eco terrorism. but a sustainable organic free-range eco terrorism, so that the acts of terror don’t produce a worse outcome of what we are doing now.
like blowing up an oil rig will cause an oil spill at sea. sabotaging oil tankers on ports doesn’t spill oil on the sea but it has the same effect as blowing up oil rigs.
i think eco terrorism will be mostly focused sabotage. all eco terrorist need to do is stop production of refined goods, supply line being global, sabotaging some unprotected factory in bangladesh that is the only one that produces a specific component could stop production of some given product globally.
That is certainly a worthwhile concern.
Edit to be clear: I think it is a worthwhile concern, not a reason to condemn all ecoterrorist action. It is just important that such action be well planned.
I think it pales in risk comparison to stuff like regular war though, and that keeps happening. They blow shit up for maximum impact and effect. whereas I would hope ecoterrorists are at least motivated to attack stuff in a non-environmentally-destructive way. Or at least, pick targets that have greater positive global impact than local negative impacts, but that kinda thing can’t be an easy decision.