Conquer Club

Shell Oil is holding an online ad contest and they're losing.
http://arcticready.com/social/gallery

MegaProphet wrote:Shell Oil is holding an online ad contest and they're losing.
http://arcticready.com/social/gallery

I gotta admit...that's some funny shit right there. <laughing>

Woodruff wrote:

MegaProphet wrote:Shell Oil is holding an online ad contest and they're losing.
http://arcticready.com/social/gallery

I gotta admit...that's some funny shit right there. <laughing>

It really is. How could someone not see that coming?

search "bully comics" or "arthur comics"


there are some hilarious troll-made comics that take advantage of contests like this.

Here's my favorite: http://arcticready.com/social/3367816-so-children-this-is-the-campaign-which-g

Ahh, the website and ad campaign is all a big hoax run by Greenpeace.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/16 ... 76842.html

Shell has decided not to sue Greenpeace over the mock website.

patches70 wrote:Ahh, the website and ad campaign is all a big hoax run by Greenpeace.

That really is truly disappointing.

patches70 wrote:Shell has decided not to sue Greenpeace over the mock website.

I find this pretty disappointing too, actually. f*ck Greenpeace.

I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

(1) it increases awareness of an alleged lack of credibility in the statements made by Shell

(2) it likely creates the seeds of a greater, future outlash against Shell, or perhaps any relevant company, for their next oil spill. This potential could induce Shell and others to marginally opt for safer production and distribution of petroleum products.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Oh, they're terrorists? How do you know? I wasn't aware that they go around killing civilians.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Oh, they're terrorists? How do you know? I wasn't aware that they go around killing civilians.

I wasn't aware that killing civilians was necessary to be a terrorist.

Well, it depends.

Terrorism:
According to the US government, if a substate organization or person kills an off-duty soldier (on R&R), a government employee, a civilian hired by the government, or a civilian, then you're a terrorist. Also, if you damage property, you've committed a criminal act; therefore, according to the FBI, you're a terrorist--assuming that you have a political agenda (e.g. radical environmentalism).

Of course, the US government excuses itself from its own definition of terrorism.

Terrorism defined:
Terrorism, or a terrorist act, involves a politically motivated response, the intention to target and kill/injure civilians explicitly, is done in a covert manner, and has the goal of influencing public opinion and eliciting state reaction (e.g. counter-insurgency/terrorism, which if done indiscriminately, benefits the terrorist organization).

This definition of terrorism actually describes a lot of actions by a state (even the US government), so the concept of terrorism is broken down into state terrorism, substate terrorism, lone wolf terrorism, transnational terrorism, environmental terrorism/ecoterrorism (which is an erroneous description in most cases where it's applied), etc.


Militant Environmentalism, ecoterrorism, or insurgency?
Some people in Greenpeace, and groups like the ELF, ALF, etc. have engaged or still engage in terrorists acts, which actually are and nearly always are acts of sabotage and not terrorism. Sabotage (e.g. arson) is categorized correctly as an act of insurgency. Very few of their acts can be considered terrorism because they take careful means not to kill or harm people. IIRC, the total of civilians killed by acts of "militant environmentalism" is certainly less than ten over the past 40 years. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace has sought peaceful means of promoting environmentalism for awhile, so calling them "terrorists" isn't correct.

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Really???

Here's some terrorism for you to digest:

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Really???

Here's some terrorism for you to digest:

That's not terrorism.

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Really???
Here's some terrorism for you to digest:

Not only is that not relevant to my point...that's not terrorism.

Woodruff wrote:

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Really???
Here's some terrorism for you to digest:

Not only is that not relevant to my point...that's not terrorism.

It's relevent. Economic terrorism by the banks on Wall Strreet and there's enviromental terrorism by large corporations who's bottom line and main concern is profit.

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization? Puhleeeze Woodruff save us from your cynical drivel.

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Really???
Here's some terrorism for you to digest:

Not only is that not relevant to my point...that's not terrorism.

It's relevent. Economic terrorism by the banks on Wall Strreet and there's enviromental terrorism by large corporations who's bottom line and main concern is profit.

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization? Puhleeeze Woodruff save us from your cynical drivel.

You don't know what terrorism is. Here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174834#p3825834

The underlined makes no sense. Feel free to explain why it does.

ITT (and in fact, all T's): GBU watches The Ed Show, and provides a summary.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I respect greenpeace for this campaign because

f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Really???
Here's some terrorism for you to digest:

Not only is that not relevant to my point...that's not terrorism.

It's relevent. Economic terrorism by the banks on Wall Strreet and there's enviromental terrorism by large corporations who's bottom line and main concern is profit.

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization? Puhleeeze Woodruff save us from your cynical drivel.

You don't know what terrorism is. Here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174834#p3825834

The underlined makes no sense. Feel free to explain why it does.

...so you took the government's rule book on what is considered terrorism? AND now you want me to explain to a brick wall? Ha-ha-ha-ha!

GreecePwns wrote:ITT (and in fact, all T's): GBU watches The Ed Show, and provides a summary.

Not sure what you mean kiddo. Is this the ordinary kneejerk reaction of an uninformed Tea Bagger? Blame it on mainstream media? The Communists? Whatever?

I'll be ready for your next rebuke....GBU watches The Daily Show, and provides a summary

Save C.C. those cyber bytes and just watch the show provided by posters who know how to respond, without resorting to slogans provided by [place your political party here]

Can you provide any evidence of me having any sort of relation to the Tea Party? Maybe in my posting history or anything? A conservative-looking avatar, maybe?

I'm looking at your entire posting history in the OT forum, where like PS and NS and Player, you blame the one branch of the single party that rules this nation for everything, while looking past that of the other.

Anyway, back on topic. The word "terrorism" has little meaning these days because it has been used to describe "anything I don't like that might be violent, but isn't necessarily." Government itself can be considered terrorism. So who cares if it's technically terrorism or not? What matters is if you approve of its methods and its positions.

You must be a speed reader!
*************************************************************************************************
Here's what you posted within 15 minutes of my post criticizing your nonense:

I'm looking at your entire posting history in the OT forum, where like PS and NS and Player, you blame the one branch of the single party that rules this nation for everything, while looking past that of the other.
************************************************************************************************

My God! You care enough about my response to your drivel, you used your lightning fast fingers and laser like eyes to go through all my posts and all within 15 minutes!


I'm impressed that you're so concerned about my posts in other topics I'll just add you to my fan base.

Love you too, honey bunny.

GBU56 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

GBU56 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
f*ck Greenpeace. They would have to completely change their ways to get any respect from me. They're terrorists, as far as I am concerned.

Really???
Here's some terrorism for you to digest:

Not only is that not relevant to my point...that's not terrorism.

It's relevent. Economic terrorism by the banks on Wall Strreet and there's enviromental terrorism by large corporations who's bottom line and main concern is profit.

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization? Puhleeeze Woodruff save us from your cynical drivel.

You don't know what terrorism is. Here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174834#p3825834

The underlined makes no sense. Feel free to explain why it does.

...so you took the government's rule book on what is considered terrorism? AND now you want me to explain to a brick wall? Ha-ha-ha-ha!

You should re-read it. Then, you wouldn't assume so much.



Still waiting for you to explain how Wall Street engages in economic terrorism, and how "there's enviromental terrorism by large corporations who's bottom line and main concern is profit." Maybe you could start with a definition of terrorism?

GBU56 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:ITT (and in fact, all T's): GBU watches The Ed Show, and provides a summary.

Not sure what you mean kiddo. Is this the ordinary kneejerk reaction of an uninformed Tea Bagger?

GreecePwns a Tea Partier? <laughing out loud> Boy...have you missed the boat on this one.