Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does Greenpeace Go Too Far? (video)  
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 2921 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Since there was a previous maritime thread.........



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHq1Aotycc&mode=related&search=


this video on a japanese fishing vessel clearly shows that instead of turning away, the greenpeace turns INTO IT !!!


ramming a ship on the high seas may cause a serious accident that may put lives in danger.

This video also shows a ramming by another organiation calling themselves Sea Shepherds. Notice the pirate flag at the front on the vessel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDsZcLVXyn8&mode=related&search=


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Sometimes, yes, they go too far. But so does everyone, and if Greenpeace are "eco-terrorists" for it then e.g. Shell are terrorists as well for trying to sink their platform Brent Spar in the North Sea. One time, Greenpeace are actually the ones who do what needs to be done - I prefer less mineral oil in my fish - and the other time they go too far.

Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter):
this video on a japanese fishing vessel clearly shows that instead of turning away, the greenpeace turns INTO IT !!!

And now, after the video has finally loaded on my lightning-fast connection  Wink I have to disagree with that statement. If you look at the comments on YouTube, they direct you at the fact that the Greenpeace ship was very slow indeed and trying to reverse - I should think they now that ramming a (bigger) ship would a) cause themselves more trouble than the whaling ship and b) do some pretty bad PR damage since it certainly is reckless.

On the other hand, the whalers use a pretty impressive amount of violence to fend off Greenpeace dinghies, water cannons and all. That means they'd accept killing people in the name of profit.

[Edited 2007-04-19 20:22:59]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 2921 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

In this particular case they are ignorant of history. Japan has always been a fishing nation because of its geography. It is part of their culture. ust like the Eskimos up in the artic have the right to hunt seals. Civilization has depended upon the bounties of the seas to feed its people. Until the day that we can turn corpses into edible food ( anyone remember Soylent Green ? ) we will always need the oceans for food.


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 2):
In this particular case they are ignorant of history. Japan has always been a fishing nation because of its geography. It is part of their culture.

But that doesn't mean they should hunt fish and whale to extinction, which applies to fish in all oceans - the EU and US fleets being no less culpable than the Japanese one - and would apply to whales if they were able to do whatever they want. History and culture are no excuses for bad decisions, and loads of those have been made as far as fishing is concerned.

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 2):
Civilization has depended upon the bounties of the seas to feed its people. Until the day that we can turn corpses into edible food ( anyone remember Soylent Green ? ) we will always need the oceans for food.

Yep, so we certainly shouldn't be overfishing the oceans like we do nowadays. But alas, "greed is good"... On a side note, that's the main problem I have with the denial of global warming. I care less about hurricanes and rising oceans than I care about dying ecosystems that are still able to provide important resources to mankind, but may not be so for long.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 2921 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

With advances in technology allowing fishing vessels to become bigger and carry more loads of fish and bigger nets, isn't overfishing an inevitable side effect of technology ???


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9405 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 1):
Sometimes, yes, they go too far. But so does everyone, and if Greenpeace are "eco-terrorists" for it then e.g. Shell are terrorists as well for trying to sink their platform Brent Spar in the North Sea. One time, Greenpeace are actually the ones who do what needs to be done - I prefer less mineral oil in my fish - and the other time they go too far.

You still believe in this propaganda by Greenpeace, do you? Why don't you double check the facts, Brent Spar for instance. Sinking that platform in the sea would have been the best solution, not only economical but also.ecological. Calling a company "terrorists" just because they made a rational decision is gross. Underwater geysirs are "polluting" the waters with all kinds of minerals every second. Far more than Brent Spar ever would have done. The solution to scrap the platfrom in Norway was irrational and bad for the environment. Even Greenpeace admitted that, only this message was not spoken out as loud as the fanfare before.Concerning the "mineral oil in your fish" - relax,there is nothing in it but I would think twice about the 4 weeks old frying oil in some greasy spoon doener or curry wurst joints.

Sure, GP can't raise money by telling the truth. It has to be Robin Hood style and criminal actions nobody else would get away with to make all the fools in this world open their bank accounts and send tons of money tokeep the foirm afloat and pay the top managent wages and expenses. The fools chaining themselves to chimneys get little or nothing.. Greenpeace is a corporation like Shell or any other, with the exception that Greenpeace and all the other NGO's have a licence to cheat, to make false statements and to terrorise whoever they want in the sake of the "environment" at random. No commercial company would get away with that, best, they don't even have to pay taxes. What a winderful scam..

As Einstein said, the universe and the stupidity of mankind is endless, but i am not so sure about the first. .



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

Quoting Alberchico (Reply 4):
With advances in technology allowing fishing vessels to become bigger and carry more loads of fish and bigger nets, isn't overfishing an inevitable side effect of technology ???

Why would it? If there were less trawlers, they'd catch less fish. Overfishing is simply the result of greed and human nonsense; why for example should we feed fish meal to chicken?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 5):
Calling a company "terrorists" just because they made a rational decision is gross.

I didn't. I was referring to those who call Greenpeace "terrorists", to show that neither Greenpeace nor Shell are.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 5):
Underwater geysirs are "polluting" the waters with all kinds of minerals every second. Far more than Brent Spar ever would have done.

Minerals aren't the same as mineral oil, far from it.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 5):
The solution to scrap the platfrom in Norway was irrational and bad for the environment. Even Greenpeace admitted that, only this message was not spoken out as loud as the fanfare before.

Source? A link to a Greenpeace website would be nice, since you say they "admitted" it.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 5):
Greenpeace is a corporation like Shell or any other, with the exception that Greenpeace and all the other NGO's have a licence to cheat, to make false statements and to terrorise whoever they want in the sake of the "environment" at random. No commercial company would get away with that, best, they don't even have to pay taxes. What a winderful scam.

Rubbish, absolute rubbish... but I guess there'll be little to be exchanged in a discussion between the two of us. So there.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 5):
As Einstein said, the universe and the stupidity of mankind is endless, but i am not so sure about the first.

Exactly - the stupidity of overfishing, poisoning the oceans we get our food out of and the extinction of species in the name of he quick buck is simply astounding.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

It looked to me that Greenpeace was trying to scare off the bigger vessel by tapping it on one of the bumpers. Apparently Greenpeace's piloting skills are not so good and the two ships collided. After the collision the larger ship went to full forward throttle causing the Greenpeace ship to get sucked in and hit again.
I don't support killing wales but I am more against ramming vessels, either intentionally or by accident, at sea. As far as I am concerned the Greenpeace vessel committed a hostile act buy attempting to ram the larger vessel. The larger vessel is entitled to the self defence of its ship. If it were my vessel I would have taken shots at the Greenpeace vessel to prevent further hostile acts.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

As one of the related videos points out, the vid taken from the Japanese vessel may be highly misleading, since the camera is moving with the ship. Without any sort of external reference point, we can't tell which vessel turned into the other's path. We only know the motion of the Greenpeace ship relative to the Japanese whaler.


Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 7):
If it were my vessel I would have taken shots at the Greenpeace vessel to prevent further hostile acts.

Beg your pardon, but what the fuck? Taking SHOTS at the ship/boat?!



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13116 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Let us not forget that Greenpeace was a victim of State Sponsored Terror, with a terror bomb allegedly placed and set off by French security services on a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, NZ in the early 1990's killing 1-2 people.
While I agree that they shouldn't attempt to intentionally ram a legal ship, they may have a right to attempt to interfere with a hunt for whales in non-violent ways.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 5):
Sure, GP can't raise money by telling the truth. It has to be Robin Hood style and criminal actions nobody else would get away with to make all the fools in this world open their bank accounts ...Greenpeace is a corporation like Shell or any other, with the exception that Greenpeace and all the other NGO's have a licence to cheat, to make false statements and to terrorise whoever they want

What an exudate, what a load of nonsense.
Only those who do nothing do nothing wrong, and going to the public almost always means to reduce the message to the core, but what you wrote is completely completely off the track.
Whalers and others, like mentioned by Aloges, have used violence against GP activists such as firing harpoons only few yards over their heads, global companies have lied to the public and polluted the environment as if there was no tomorrow, the French government sank a GP ship killing one, and now it's either Greenpeace own's fault or they are the criminals?
While GP is not my favourite NGO, this is really difficult to bear.

And if "all other NGOs have a licence to cheat", then you may want to consider joining one, i.e. amnesty international. The amount of cheating would surprise you - only that it comes from governments, including your own.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 9):
Beg your pardon, but what the fuck? Taking SHOTS at the ship/boat?!

You are ok with ramming or attempting to ram another vessel? That is inherently more dangerous then shooting at it is.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 12):
You are ok with ramming or attempting to ram another vessel?

Where did I ever say that?

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 12):
That is inherently more dangerous then shooting at it is.

Nevermind you might kill one of the people on board...  sarcastic 



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Isn't this a bit of Greenpeace trying to impose their values and beliefs on another, sovereign, nation? What gives them the right or the mandate? I think Greenpeace is being terribly intolerant. They should try to reach an understanding with the Japanese, rather than simply resort to violence. It could even be construed as an illegal act of aggression, if not war.

Haven't I heard these arguments somewhere before?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently onlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9405 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 6):

Source? A link to a Greenpeace website would be nice, since you say they "admitted" it.

simple and easy, just read this text

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar

In German only but I am sure that our english readers find the same text in English , just enter Brent Spar / Greenpeace.

Greenpecae raised a campaign with false figures which resulted in a brainless media campaign and criminals attacking a Shell station in Hamburg.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15):
Greenpecae raised a campaign with false figures

If you read the Wikipedia article carefully, you'd notice that Greenpeace did not say they purposedly used wrong figures ,and they later apologized. Greenpeace was founded in the early 70s, and the Brent Spar campaign was clearly not a highlight. So, what's with the other hundreds of campaigns? As I said before: Only those who do nothing do nothing wrong (other than doing nothing one may add).

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 14):
Isn't this a bit of Greenpeace trying to impose their values and beliefs on another, sovereign, nation?

This is like saying that amnesty was impoing their beliefs (i.e. not to torture) on other nations.
Japan has been claiming for years they would kill whales fore "scientific research", as whaling for commercial purposes is prohibited. Now, how many valuable and internationally acclaimed scientific dossiers evolved out of whaling? So who is imposing whose standards on other nations? And after responding to this question, please be so kind to tell me since when a nation, souvereign or not, can exploit international waters without the approval of the international community?

[Edited 2007-04-19 22:44:42]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15):
simple and easy, just read this text

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar

Sorry, but no. The article is biased ("extremists attacked a Shell station" where the judgemental word "extremists" has no place) and does not cite its sources. Even so, there is no mention at all of your claim that "Sinking that platform in the sea would have been the best solution, not only economical but also.ecological." All it states is that GP vastly overstated the amount of oil on board.

But anyway, I've looked up the Greenpeace link myself. http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/oel/...k_ein_konzern_versenkt_sein_image/ refers to the apology - good on them. The article also states that the sinking would have cost 20 mio GBP while the deconstruction cost 25 mio. 5 mio pounds is a drop in the bucket for a corporation like shell.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 16):
This is like saying that amnesty was impoing their beliefs

Last time I checked, Amnesty International did not ram ships and endanger the lives of all involved. Sure whales are important, but worth injuring or killing people?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 18):
Last time I checked, Amnesty International did not ram ships and endanger the lives of all involved.

Keep the ball low, please. From the video the thread starter posted. I couldn't even say for sure if the GP ship rammed the whaler or if it was more the other way around. Filmed from this position ...


Source: http://oceans.greenpeace.org

.... it indeed looks as if the whaler was the offending ship. And frankly, isn't the whaler by far the bigger ship? If the smaller ship rams the bigger ship, which of the two ships is in danger?



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19):
I couldn't even say for sure if the GP ship rammed the whaler or if it was more the other way around.

What was the Greenpeace ship doing in such close proximity to the whaler in the first place? I would bet they were not out for an afternoon cruise or a little sport fishing.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19):
And frankly, isn't the whaler by far the bigger ship?

Making it unable to avoid the smaller, more nimble vessel?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineLHStarAlliance From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter):
Does Greenpeace Go Too Far?

No ! I´ld sink that boats with all this a** Ho*** in

Konstantin


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1767 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 20):
What was the Greenpeace ship doing in such close proximity to the whaler in the first place? I would bet they were not out for an afternoon cruise or a little sport fishing.

You are grasping for straws. First their alleged wrongdoing was to ram the whaler, now you blame them for being there. What's next?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 20):
Making it unable to avoid the smaller, more nimble vessel?

Sorry? What do you call the speed of the whaler? Would you say they tried to reverse?

Couldn't you just admit that it at least seems that you're wrong claiming that the GP ship would pose a risk to the whaler?

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 21):
No ! I´ld sink that boats with all this a** Ho*** in

Must be your idiotic comment number 1,065 here on the forums.

[Edited 2007-04-19 23:59:12]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1741 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 22):
You are grasping for straws.

No, I am saying the Greenpeace vessel was there for the purpose of provoking a confrontation.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 22):
Sorry? What do you call the speed of the whaler? Would you say they tried to reverse?

What I saw was the bow of the Greenpeace vessel impact the side of the whaler at almost a 90 degree angle. Are you suggesting the whaler was moving sideways in order to prevent the other ship from escaping?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 22):
Couldn't you just admit that it at least seems that you're wrong claiming that the GP ship would pose a risk to the whaler?

Nope. Not unless you can demonstrate how one can collide ships with a margin of safety. Look up the Andrea Doria. The larger ship sunk while the smaller one escaped due to the angle of impact and the differences in construction.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1723 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 23):
What I saw was the bow of the Greenpeace vessel impact the side of the whaler at almost a 90 degree angle. Are you suggesting the whaler was moving sideways in order to prevent the other ship from escaping?

What I'm suggesting is that Greenpeace blocked the whaler's way, and the whaler in return tried to ram the vessel. If you watch both videos carefully, it's pretty much obvious that the whaler is the offending ship. Greenpeace's ship is trying to reverse, hence there's barely a bow wave to see in the first video but heavy turbulences at the stern.



I support the right to arm bears
25 L-188 : One of the great French military victories in the 20th century!!! 1 person died, and I don't blame the French for his death. He wasn't on the boat at
26 L-188 : May I suggest that a 400 foot whaler doesn't exactly stop on a dime either. The terrorist vessel is smaller and more manuverable.
27 Post contains images Aloges : Ah, yes... I guess the "terrorist" denominator is so en vogue these days you can use it for everyone who vocally disagrees with you. Pray tell, when
28 Msnell : I'm not going to get too involved in this thread but I just wanted to say this: In the Greenpeace video, the narrator talks about the 'International R
29 Airfoilsguy : And ramming the ship could sink it killing EVERYONE on board. It is an easy scenario, if you don't try to ram me I won't shoot at you. Why is that so
30 Post contains images Mrniji : See the problem is not the fishing per se, but the extent! If they are traditional families who survive on fishing as income (Norway, Island, Japan),
31 NoUFO : Do the police in your country shoot on people driving under the influence? I mean they could kill a number of people. But PanHAM did not want to poin
32 Mrniji : Actually, we will have to make a big distinction between NGOs and INGOs (International NGOs). Well, it all depends. When I was "observing" the NGO co
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did I Go Too Far? posted Sun Sep 8 2002 03:47:50 by FSPilot747
Family Rights One Step Too Far? posted Fri Jan 19 2007 16:21:28 by Oly720man
"Supporters" Taking Football Abuse Too Far. posted Wed Jan 3 2007 21:02:33 by Thom@s
Can Technology Be Taken Too Far? (Opinions?) posted Sat Dec 30 2006 02:32:03 by Blackbird
Has Nancy Grace Gone Too Far? posted Fri Sep 15 2006 12:57:35 by 9VSPO
Has Israel Gone Too Far? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:00:05 by Dc10s4ever
Joke Gone Too Far? posted Sun Feb 19 2006 01:44:20 by FutureUApilot
Has The Sports Memorabilia Market Gone Too Far? posted Tue Jun 7 2005 15:22:39 by Garnetpalmetto
Freakin' UK Rugby Fan Goes Too Far posted Tue Feb 8 2005 18:17:28 by LHMARK
Going Too Far--Where Do You Draw The Line? posted Sun Jan 23 2005 09:44:25 by MD-90