Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment
Subject: Re: INFO: Greenhype on Oil Spills
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:58:23 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Afraid of comments, J*m?  Why make followups to you and not the net?

From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
>In-reply-to: aws@iti.org's message of Thu, 16 Jul 1992 13:20:04 GMT
>
>=o= Since I've served as conduit for some Greenpeace press
>releases, somebody's asked me for information about the
>following remarks by Allen Sherzer:
>
>> . . . if Greenpeace had met [Saddam Hussein's] deliberate
>> dumping of oil into the Gulf with anything but silence maybe
>> he wouldn't have decided to burn all the oil wells.
>
>> The fact still remains that when Exxon caused a spill by
>> accident Greenpeace was all over them. When Saddam caused far
>> worse damage and did it on purpose, Greenpeace couldn't bring
>> themselves to do anything but remain silent.
>>
>> Would a press release have been too much to ask?
>
>=o= What is all this about?  Was Greenpeace actually silent
>about this oil spill?  No, of course not -- and Mr. Sherzer
>is well aware of it.

	But they were.  They were busy trying to blame the US for all
environmental damage done by the Gulf War.

>=o= During the Gulf War there were two large oil spills:  one
>believed to be inadvertently caused by allied bombing and one
>believed to be deliberately ordered by Saddam Hussein.  The
>former spill got very little coverage in the American press.
>Indeed, there was TV coverage of the latter spill which featured
>footage of beaches coated with oil from the former spill (with
>no mention of the former spill's existence).

	The latter got a lot of coverage because it was *six times* worse than
Exxon Valdez.  The former was a mere blip.

	All coverage was from the latter spill.  There was no need to dig out
"old" footage.  The Saddam Slick killed the Persian Gulf all the way down to
Bahrain.

>=o= Greenpeace is an international organization, and as such,
>paid attention to the media of other countries (who were not
>particularly intent on soft-pedalling the existence of the
>former spill).  And they released a number of press releases
>condemning the spills.

	We wouldn't mind their reposting here.

>=o= Mr. Sherzer is a provincial individual, and as such, wanted
>Greenpeace's press releases to specifically accuse and condemn
>Saddam Hussein by name for causing "the" oil spill.
>
	Why not?  They weren't shy about saying "Exxon" in press releases.

>=o= At first Mr. Sherzer was trying to suggest that Greenpeace
>was/is actually "on Saddam's side."  Now he's just trying to get
>whatever mileage he can out of pathetic comments like the above.

	Not so much on Saddam's side as against the US.

>=o= It should be noted that while Mr. Sherzer was sitting on
>his butt trying to conjure up nits to flame Greenpeace about,
>Greenpeace was the first organization to actually go into the
>Gulf to get to work on cleaning it up.

	Hahahaha!  If you call six months after the war ended "first".

	Many other groups had been there and cleaned up the beached before
Greenpeace took their pleasure cruise up the gulf.  Note that while they had
time to display anti-Western banners, they couldn't seem to find the time to
visit the burning Iraqi oil wells or set foot where Saddam had released the
oil.

>=o= If anyone wishes to find out Greenpeace's positions on th
>Gulf War from a more reliable souce than Mr. Sherzer, they can
>find it in the March/April 1991 issue of _Greenpeace_Magazine_.

	We know their position.  That's what we're pointing out.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism